Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
I don't find any ambiguity with XLR connectors or the like. Male plug has exposed pins, female socket has shrouded receptacles. Doesn't matter if they're cable mount or panel mount types. So long as you don't fall into the confusion of thinking if it's on a cable it's a plug there's no problem at all.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
I'm not quite sure what you mean. That wikipedia page refers to a male end and a female end - calling it the plug (or jack) end and socket end seems to make as much sense. Or the triple-penis end vs the triple-vagina end.individualmember wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:45 pmWhat about connectors which are the other way around at each end of the cable, plug and socket isn’t enough for XLR connectorsBird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:03 amJack and socket do seem unambiguous. Plug already gets used as a verb, and there's a bit of ambiguity as Martin says, along with its other slang uses - so "plug the jack into the socket" seems good enough.individualmember wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:51 amBack when I was learning the terminology one of the alternatives was insert the jack into the jack plug/socket. Because PO type audio connectors (similar to but not the same as 1/4” TRS connectors) were always called Jacks in the area of telly I was in.
And the plugs usually had double innering (ooer missus).
I guess it could become a euphemism at some point, though electric plugs and sockets have been around for decades already without becoming commonly sexualised. But I think that's a different question to adopting terminology that was initially used solely to refer to sex.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
The cool kids all have quadruple penis and quadruple vagina ends nowadays, grandad.
(Or lightning ends if they're Apple cool kids. Or Bluetooth and no ends at all, I s'pose.)
(Or lightning ends if they're Apple cool kids. Or Bluetooth and no ends at all, I s'pose.)
- sTeamTraen
- After Pie
- Posts: 2572
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:24 pm
- Location: Palma de Mallorca, Spain
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
The Spanish term for male as in a male connector is "macho", which is pleasing to this English-speaking ear. A "macho cabrío" is a billy goat, and not a convertible car driven by a man who is compensating for only having a 3.5mm jack plug.
Something something hammer something something nail
- individualmember
- Catbabel
- Posts: 662
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:26 pm
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
What I’m getting at is that when I specify an XLR plug or a socket I have to specify a Male or female plug on the cable to fit a Male or female socket on a device (microphone, speaker, recorder, interface, whatever). So if I want to get away from using the terms Male and female* then plug and socket doesn’t help because there’s two types of each.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:23 pm
I'm not quite sure what you mean. That wikipedia page refers to a male end and a female end - calling it the plug (or jack) end and socket end seems to make as much sense. Or the triple-penis end vs the triple-vagina end.
I realise that I’m using plug to mean the connector on the cable and socket to mean the connector on the surface of a thing. Maybe that’s a problem.
[BTW I have no idea why this is insisting on capitalising the first letter of male but not female]
- individualmember
- Catbabel
- Posts: 662
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:26 pm
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
Yes, that’s a trap I fell into. Ok, so what do we call the bit on a cable and the bit on a panel to distinguish between them? A panel mount plug versus a cable mount socket? TBH I’ve never really discussed them other to demand a replacement thing to replace a broken one and asking for a female plug or a male socket hasn’t been misinterpreted yet.Martin Y wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:09 pmI don't find any ambiguity with XLR connectors or the like. Male plug has exposed pins, female socket has shrouded receptacles. Doesn't matter if they're cable mount or panel mount types. So long as you don't fall into the confusion of thinking if it's on a cable it's a plug there's no problem at all.
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
That's it, you just describe an XLR connector by its number of pins, male or female, cable or panel mount.
- Gentleman Jim
- Catbabel
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:38 pm
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
Surely it's just "Thingamejig" and "whatsit"
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
But how do you translate "Thingamejig" and "whatsit" into German not to mention Chinese?
- Gentleman Jim
- Catbabel
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:38 pm
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
Google translate?
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
When you did, what did you receive in return?
Pictures needed!!
-
- Clardic Fug
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:00 pm
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
When I worked in Switzerland we used Dingsbums for whatsit or thingamejig.
These were telecoms technical terms.
Can't think of another german synonym off the top of my head.
ETA: There is of course Scheisskerl but that only applies if the whatsit is causing problems.
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
I never learned German but years ago before you just Googled stuff the only spare parts, I mean ersatzteile, info we had for many of our microphone stands was a fax of a photocopy of the German version. So the various knobs and clamps are forever rändelschraube and klemmstück.
- Gentleman Jim
- Catbabel
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:38 pm
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
那是什么
Nà shì shénme
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
Here is a page from the excellent LEO dictionaries, this showing Dingsbums on a German <> English two way page:
Dingsbums
Note lnks to a number of forum discussions.
Dingsbums
Note lnks to a number of forum discussions.
- Boustrophedon
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2948
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:58 pm
- Location: Lincolnshire Wolds
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
When machining things which have to fit into other things, like pistons into cylinders on a model steam engines, the rule is always to machine Eve first.
Just off to polish my slave clocks now.
Just off to polish my slave clocks now.
Perit hic laetatio.
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
Instead of making her second from offcuts like God did? I guess it was His first time and he probably never heard the phrase before either.Boustrophedon wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:23 pmWhen machining things which have to fit into other things, like pistons into cylinders on a model steam engines, the rule is always to machine Eve first.
Just off to polish my slave clocks now.
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
It's not a euphemism, they aren't actually body parts you know. It's just a description of a thing.
I'm not sure why "people have hang ups about sex" is something to deride or use as a reasonable dismissal. You need to meet people where they are instead of judging people for having feelings and mores different to you.
Hang ups about sex are a common result of sexual assault. So just have a think about what it is that you are saying.
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
I have plenty of hang ups, I think most people do, as a first approximation I’d say everyone does. Some more than others and for a variety of reasons. I was intending for a wry tone rather than a dismissive one, but I think I missed, sorry.plebian wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:44 pmIt's not a euphemism, they aren't actually body parts you know. It's just a description of a thing.
I'm not sure why "people have hang ups about sex" is something to deride or use as a reasonable dismissal. You need to meet people where they are instead of judging people for having feelings and mores different to you.
Hang ups about sex are a common result of sexual assault. So just have a think about what it is that you are saying.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
Now you need to sex BNC, or better still, Triax connectors...
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
Is this some sort of British exceptionalism? You'll have to be rather more explicit than that.JQH wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:19 amSee the history of slavery in the British Empire for a f.cking big clue.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:26 amWhat has whiteness got to do with it?El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:00 pmI've skipped over a few posts on this thread, but it's always worth remembering the general balance of whiteness on the forum. We're not necessarily the best people to judge the offensiveness or not of the terms here.
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
Well, in that case, what terms would you use for a persistent relationship between two people, A and B, whereby B must do exactly what A demands with no way to escape?dyqik wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:58 pmThis just isn't true. You obviously don't know much about slavery.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:31 amGIven system A and system B whereby system B does only and exactly what is dictated by system A, this seems a perfectly good match to the terms "master" and "slave".
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
That's never happened, and so there's no term for it. Certainly it isn't Master-Slave, because slaves could have considerable responsibility (e.g. when used as household servants), or could be pure manual labour. In either case, it was possible for them to rebel, and be punished, or to escape. Slavery works by threats and terror, which is not relevant to technology.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:32 amWell, in that case, what terms would you use for a persistent relationship between two people, A and B, whereby B must do exactly what A demands with no way to escape?dyqik wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:58 pmThis just isn't true. You obviously don't know much about slavery.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:31 amGIven system A and system B whereby system B does only and exactly what is dictated by system A, this seems a perfectly good match to the terms "master" and "slave".
And so it doesn't reflect the relationship between a system A and system B where system B has no free will.
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
The other question you should ask yourself is why are you so insistent on anthropomorphising both nodes in this relationship? Why use terms for people, instead of domesticated animals, or insects, or mechanical components?dyqik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:50 pmThat's never happened, and so there's no term for it. Certainly it isn't Master-Slave, because slaves could have considerable responsibility (e.g. when used as household servants), or could be pure manual labour. In either case, it was possible for them to rebel, and be punished, or to escape. Slavery works by threats and terror, which is not relevant to technology.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:32 amWell, in that case, what terms would you use for a persistent relationship between two people, A and B, whereby B must do exactly what A demands with no way to escape?
And so it doesn't reflect the relationship between a system A and system B where system B has no free will.
Re: Is "master - slave" admissible as technical terms?
If you are going to insist on anthropomorphising, then there dozens of centralized hierarchical power structures to choose as examples that work at least as well. e.g.:
Director-foreman-worker
Director-actor
General-sergeant-private
Centurion-legion
King-baron-serf
Emperor-subject
Pope-bishop-priest
But you are trying to force a deterministic relationship into a non-deterministic analogy. More accurately deterministic structures have to move away from people as the nodes, e.g.
brain-limb
Director-foreman-worker
Director-actor
General-sergeant-private
Centurion-legion
King-baron-serf
Emperor-subject
Pope-bishop-priest
But you are trying to force a deterministic relationship into a non-deterministic analogy. More accurately deterministic structures have to move away from people as the nodes, e.g.
brain-limb