On Sep 15, 7:59 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

ups.com...

If, as you say, hispanics share a culture, then....

That is how the OMB defines it, and, thus the Census Bureau.

This is actually quite funny. Tardo has a great fondness for arguments
from authority, since they only require him to cite
"authorities" (dictionaries, census bureaus, etc.) as opposed to
saying anything more substantive. Now, though, he's trying to justify
inconsistency itself by appeal to authorities. I guess if
inconsistency is good enough for your precious authorities, it must be
good enough for us, huh Tardo? lol

"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 15, 7:59 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

ups.com...

If, as you say, hispanics share a culture, then....

That is how the OMB defines it, and, thus the Census Bureau.

This is actually quite funny. Tardo has a great fondness for arguments
from authority, since they only require him to cite
"authorities" (dictionaries, census bureaus, etc.) as opposed to
saying anything more substantive. Now, though, he's trying to justify
inconsistency itself by appeal to authorities. I guess if
inconsistency is good enough for your precious authorities, it must be
good enough for us, huh Tardo? lol


What is inconsistent? The term "Hispanic" used to mean someone from what was
the Roman province of Hispania. Since that was a little used term, when the
Census was ordered to break out what we now know as Hispanics before the
1980 Census, there was no term that fit the mandate. Latino includes
Brazilians, Portuguese, French, Italians, etc. So the OMB and Census came up
with a word that covered persons of the "Hispanic culture" which really is
just anyone who speaks as their principal language or comes from a heritage
where it was the principal language of Spanish. Of course, even this is a
defective term in the sense that many Hispanics' heritage tongue is Náhuatl,
Quechua, Aymará, etc.

But, it had been impossible to separately enumerate this group before (most
were under "white" racially) the term worked.

David wrote:

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:36:19 -0500, msg wrote:

David wrote:

What you are doing is driving people away from their radios and toward
their computers. People you don't care about anyway, but persons just
the same. I wish somebody would make a decent standalone internet
radio appliance for under a hundred bucks.

You can do that very easily with small handheld wireless computing devices
such as the "Zipit Wireless Messenger"; please see my pages at:
http://www.cybertheque.org/homebrew/zipit

snip

I saw the pages but didn't see anything about internet radio.

A careful reading and navigation of the few pages will make it clearer.

From the development announcement page: http://ipx1.cybertheque.net/homebrew...it-devel.shtml

'fmli' AT&T Form and Menu Language Interpreter; curses-based GUI for screen and keyboard management;
it permits the ZipIT to host complex applications not otherwise well suited for the tiny keyboard
and limited screen. Please view this example screen shot of a Communications Menu with several
submenus (note that the Internet Radio application runs in the background and the user my browse
the web with lynx or perform other tasks selected from other menus while listening):

FMLI Screen Shot1 FMLI Screen Shot2 , and here is the 'fmli' 'F7' Command Menu with a moonscape
wallpaper background: FMLI Screen Shot 3.

Regards,

Michael

That'd be fine to use a wi-fi "radio" but watch "them" figure out a way to
make streaming audio pay only, just like pay websites.

I'm rural in Pa. and the whole AM band is shot at night now... IBOC bull****
has to go.

Rich


What you are doing is driving people away from their radios and toward
their computers. People you don't care about anyway, but persons just
the same. I wish somebody would make a decent standalone internet
radio appliance for under a hundred bucks.

On Sep 16, 1:51 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Sep 15, 7:59 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

roups.com...

If, as you say, hispanics share a culture, then....

That is how the OMB defines it, and, thus the Census Bureau.

This is actually quite funny. Tardo has a great fondness for arguments
from authority, since they only require him to cite
"authorities" (dictionaries, census bureaus, etc.) as opposed to
saying anything more substantive. Now, though, he's trying to justify
inconsistency itself by appeal to authorities. I guess if
inconsistency is good enough for your precious authorities, it must be
good enough for us, huh Tardo? lol

What is inconsistent? The term "Hispanic" used to mean someone from what was
the Roman province of Hispania. Since that was a little used term, when the
Census was ordered to break out what we now know as Hispanics before the
1980 Census, there was no term that fit the mandate. Latino includes
Brazilians, Portuguese, French, Italians, etc. So the OMB and Census came up
with a word that covered persons of the "Hispanic culture" which really is
just anyone who speaks as their principal language or comes from a heritage
where it was the principal language of Spanish. Of course, even this is a
defective term in the sense that many Hispanics' heritage tongue is Náhuatl,
Quechua, Aymará, etc.

But, it had been impossible to separately enumerate this group before (most
were under "white" racially) the term worked.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are inconsistent. First, when some posters object that there's a
distinction to be drawn between race and nationality, you respond that
there is no distinction because two people can be categorized as
belonging to the same race anytime they share some characteristic
(e.g., nationality) in common. However, when someone later describes
Hispanic people as belonging to the same race, it turns out that being
Hispanic is not, as a characteristic, sufficient for two people's
belonging to the same race. So, it appears you can't make up your
mind about whether to employ a very 'thin' notion of race or a
substantially thicker one. When pressed on this apparent
inconsistency, you seek shelter behind your dictionary and the Census
Bureau. Pathetic.

"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 16, 1:51 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

What is inconsistent? The term "Hispanic" used to mean someone from what
was
the Roman province of Hispania. Since that was a little used term, when
the
Census was ordered to break out what we now know as Hispanics before the
1980 Census, there was no term that fit the mandate. Latino includes
Brazilians, Portuguese, French, Italians, etc. So the OMB and Census came
up
with a word that covered persons of the "Hispanic culture" which really is
just anyone who speaks as their principal language or comes from a
heritage
where it was the principal language of Spanish. Of course, even this is a
defective term in the sense that many Hispanics' heritage tongue is
Náhuatl,
Quechua, Aymará, etc.

But, it had been impossible to separately enumerate this group before
(most
were under "white" racially) the term worked.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are inconsistent. First, when some posters object that there's a
distinction to be drawn between race and nationality, you respond that
there is no distinction because two people can be categorized as
belonging to the same race anytime they share some characteristic
(e.g., nationality) in common. However, when someone later describes
Hispanic people as belonging to the same race, it turns out that being
Hispanic is not, as a characteristic, sufficient for two people's
belonging to the same race.

Thsat is because "Hispanic" has no common characteristics save language use
or heritage, and even there inconsistencies are found. Hispanic is not a
nationality, an ethnicity nor is it, under any standard definition, a race.
What common characteristic does an English speaking Tejano have with someone
from Buenos Aires... or either of them with a Quechua-speaking indigenous
person from Otavalo, Ecuador?

The usage by some US Hispanics of "raza" means (from the additonal Spanish
definitions... it is, after all. a Spanish word) "brotherhood " or "people."
There is a commonality there of language, origin, ethnicity and even (mixed)
racial characteristics. But to say all Hispanics are a race is patently
absurd.

So, it appears you can't make up your
mind about whether to employ a very 'thin' notion of race or a
substantially thicker one. When pressed on this apparent
inconsistency, you seek shelter behind your dictionary and the Census
Bureau. Pathetic.

In the US, the Census defined the term "Hispanic" by taking a little-used
term and adding a meaning. For all practical purposes, it is a neologism,
like the contemporary "downsize" term applied to layoffs or the word "crib"
used to indicate abode. Language is dynamic, of course, and such changes are
why dictionaries have new editions constantly.

David Eduardo wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 16, 1:51 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

What is inconsistent? The term "Hispanic" used to mean someone from what
was
the Roman province of Hispania. Since that was a little used term, when
the
Census was ordered to break out what we now know as Hispanics before the
1980 Census, there was no term that fit the mandate. Latino includes
Brazilians, Portuguese, French, Italians, etc. So the OMB and Census came
up
with a word that covered persons of the "Hispanic culture" which really is
just anyone who speaks as their principal language or comes from a
heritage
where it was the principal language of Spanish. Of course, even this is a
defective term in the sense that many Hispanics' heritage tongue is
Náhuatl,
Quechua, Aymará, etc.

But, it had been impossible to separately enumerate this group before
(most
were under "white" racially) the term worked.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are inconsistent. First, when some posters object that there's a
distinction to be drawn between race and nationality, you respond that
there is no distinction because two people can be categorized as
belonging to the same race anytime they share some characteristic
(e.g., nationality) in common. However, when someone later describes
Hispanic people as belonging to the same race, it turns out that being
Hispanic is not, as a characteristic, sufficient for two people's
belonging to the same race.

Thsat is because "Hispanic" has no common characteristics save language use
or heritage, and even there inconsistencies are found. Hispanic is not a
nationality, an ethnicity nor is it, under any standard definition, a race.
What common characteristic does an English speaking Tejano have with someone
from Buenos Aires... or either of them with a Quechua-speaking indigenous
person from Otavalo, Ecuador?

The usage by some US Hispanics of "raza" means (from the additonal Spanish
definitions... it is, after all. a Spanish word) "brotherhood " or "people."
There is a commonality there of language, origin, ethnicity and even (mixed)
racial characteristics. But to say all Hispanics are a race is patently
absurd.

Patently absurd... just like you, Chifako!

Prance along.

RHF wrote:

snip


-WRT- Zipit Wireless Messenger - Out-of-the-Box does
it work as a Plug-and-Play Stand-A-Lone Web-Radio ?


Out of the box, with the latest firmware from the manufacturer,
it has a proprietary audio player for use with a proprietary
program to be run an a user's PC which streams audio to the
Zipit.

The hacking described on my pages (and other hacks from
elsewhere) permit using the hardware as a general-purpose
platform; I have implemented an IP Radio and other
programs using software that I have written and software
from other closed and open source projects.

Regards,

Michael