Good, because next time we send the boys around.;-)
I assumed that you thought it meant something different, judging from what you said. I appreciate evolving languages, and how new words come about but within that analogy I'd say "irregardless" is a genetic cul-de-sac. It's longer and more awkward-sounding than its parent. Besides which, to me at least, "irregardless" causes a mental *screeching brakes* noise (similar to "put on a pedal-stool" and "damp squid" for IT-Crowd viewers).
Back in the "evolution" metaphor - I guess my "grammar troll" behaviour is just part of the selection-pressure. The point of evolution isn't that every mutation survives.
Interesting... so you're thinking about having pages of text that can link to other pages in a non-sequential way? Like some kind of HYPERlinking? Hmmm...
You guys keep using the word parallax, but from my understanding that effect is based on how the percept changes when the observer moves - which is something that you COULDN'T get in a 3D cinema (but I have seen simulated). 3D cinemas simulate disparity.
I think you replied after I clarified that I'd mixed some non-monotheistic stuff in with the other religious stances that informed those things. Anyway, I'm just going to respond to a few of your points here:
1. The Greek philosophers were not team players, they were each pretty self-centred.
2. Polytheism means that with many Gods you can have many truths and many ideal ways of living. You might choose to worship a particular God because their domain fits in with your lifestyle. There's also the idea of competition between the Gods etc.
3. Your argument that there is not a scientific "canon" seems pretty shallow to me. At the simplest level, there are journals that a university/RI wants you to publish in and those that they don't. That creates a canon.
4. "Sources" - I'm not sure what you're really expecting here. I can't link to a paper or set of statistics to support it because it's not that kind of information. As much as a "source" in that sense is required, this is it. I'm just a guy on the internet who has done a fair bit of reading and sees these things as coming out of it. If you want an authority to tell you that these opinions are respectable then by all means check out Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals (particularly the end) where he frames the ideological bit of what I was saying.
I unfortunately muddled up bits in my response that came from monotheism and bits that came from religious movements in general.
Religious thought has the genesis of the idea that there are things worth searching for that are objective, independent of human regard (man is NOT the measure of all things). That you might sacrifice base hedonism for a lifestyle that works towards some sort of external goal. That idea is put forward very well at the end of Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals.
The monotheistic bit is the organising under a shared set of values - and spreading them imperially. It (forcibly) focused society into a machine.
RE: Medical Texts - They're unusual in that medicine is a very "basic" need that people have, and texts in those areas are what allowed people to do their jobs and keep people alive. The drive is different from the "search for knowledge".
RE: Fixed Canon - The Bible was pretty fixed, but it would be a mistake to think that there weren't MANY other texts that were studied in religious contexts. The Bible wasn't really *enough* for the scholars in the church (even going back to St. Thomas), they wanted something more intellectual. They read and interpereted many other texts (including the Greek philosophers), and these other texts caused various revolutions within the churches (some with "scientific" elements, it's harder to seperate these things back then).
Well, I guess my stated source was "the history of science", and you could look at it yourself and see. The idea isn't mine though. I got it from some History of Science lectures I attended that put it forward.
There are two ways in which it's true. One is the very "practical" way in which "the churches" were (obviously) very involved with education, knowledge, communities etc. back then. There is, however, a much more interesting level on which it is true. That is that the idea of having an external, universal truth that you're searching for as a team; having a "canon" of accepted material documenting that truth; having institutionally-recognised experts who will teach students - these all come from monotheism.
In my experience at least, tabs were the death of the bookmark. I hardly know of anybody who still uses the bookmark feature in their browser rather than just keeping the interesting page in a tab as a "I'll go back to that later".
I like reading marked-up books sometimes because you get an extra narrative of how another person has used it. Sometimes their notes are insightful, sometimes they're stupid and sometimes they're just odd. My favourite example of the last one is a book of poetry that I have. There's a "conversation" going on in the margin between a student and her classmate...
"Did you see the X-Men movie"
"Yes"
"What did you think?"
etc.
Grading is typically done to give a particular distribution of marks. For example: a normal distribution with the mean at 63 and a standard deviation of 8. This seems unfair, the whole class could "improve" by ten marks from one year to the next but they'd still all get the same marks. The alternative is worse though, as different criteria between markers would cause massive fluctuations between them (or between the same marker in different moods). Obviously there are usually "mark schemes", but I find these tell less than half of the story. Sometimes there are pieces of work that it is very difficult to find fault with and these might end up getting "outlier" marks, but it's very hard to get 100% when the marker's attitude has switched to "what can I find wrong with this so it doesn't fuck with the distribution?".
Yeah, but which one you're addressing depends on the context. Here in the UK you can "bugger" somebody's plans, or you can "bugger up" a computer - which will take one meaning - but you can't talk about "buggering" a person without eliciting giggles.
Slashdot Mirror
These are significant questions but you're acting like we already have the answers.
Dwarf Fortress?
"This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original..."
Beat me to it! Not sure how much of that is due to inefficient coding though.
Really? I can't find support for that distinction anywhere.
Good, because next time we send the boys around. ;-)
I assumed that you thought it meant something different, judging from what you said. I appreciate evolving languages, and how new words come about but within that analogy I'd say "irregardless" is a genetic cul-de-sac. It's longer and more awkward-sounding than its parent. Besides which, to me at least, "irregardless" causes a mental *screeching brakes* noise (similar to "put on a pedal-stool" and "damp squid" for IT-Crowd viewers).
Back in the "evolution" metaphor - I guess my "grammar troll" behaviour is just part of the selection-pressure. The point of evolution isn't that every mutation survives.
Libraries are themselves becoming a lot less about the books.
"Well-read on Christopher Hitchens"? Isn't that some sort of oxymoron? :-P
Interesting... so you're thinking about having pages of text that can link to other pages in a non-sequential way? Like some kind of HYPERlinking? Hmmm...
... except it means exactly the same thing as "regardless", it's just a corruption. Same as "flammable" is to "inflammable".
The UK subsidiary went out of business in December last year - all the staff lost their jobs on Christmas Eve.
You guys keep using the word parallax, but from my understanding that effect is based on how the percept changes when the observer moves - which is something that you COULDN'T get in a 3D cinema (but I have seen simulated). 3D cinemas simulate disparity.
Are we intentionally ignoring the source I DID provide?
I think you replied after I clarified that I'd mixed some non-monotheistic stuff in with the other religious stances that informed those things. Anyway, I'm just going to respond to a few of your points here:
1. The Greek philosophers were not team players, they were each pretty self-centred.
2. Polytheism means that with many Gods you can have many truths and many ideal ways of living. You might choose to worship a particular God because their domain fits in with your lifestyle. There's also the idea of competition between the Gods etc.
3. Your argument that there is not a scientific "canon" seems pretty shallow to me. At the simplest level, there are journals that a university/RI wants you to publish in and those that they don't. That creates a canon.
4. "Sources" - I'm not sure what you're really expecting here. I can't link to a paper or set of statistics to support it because it's not that kind of information. As much as a "source" in that sense is required, this is it. I'm just a guy on the internet who has done a fair bit of reading and sees these things as coming out of it. If you want an authority to tell you that these opinions are respectable then by all means check out Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals (particularly the end) where he frames the ideological bit of what I was saying.
Not at all, I don't see how you could think that without deliberately misreading what I wrote either.
Ah, no, that goes part-way to answering. Though obviously the next question is "Why make a case-sensitive application in the first place?".
Is there a particular reason to WANT a case-sensitive system? Genuinely interested.
What if you already have a computer? Then it's a WHOLLY unjustified expense!
I unfortunately muddled up bits in my response that came from monotheism and bits that came from religious movements in general.
Religious thought has the genesis of the idea that there are things worth searching for that are objective, independent of human regard (man is NOT the measure of all things). That you might sacrifice base hedonism for a lifestyle that works towards some sort of external goal. That idea is put forward very well at the end of Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals.
The monotheistic bit is the organising under a shared set of values - and spreading them imperially. It (forcibly) focused society into a machine.
RE: Medical Texts - They're unusual in that medicine is a very "basic" need that people have, and texts in those areas are what allowed people to do their jobs and keep people alive. The drive is different from the "search for knowledge".
RE: Fixed Canon - The Bible was pretty fixed, but it would be a mistake to think that there weren't MANY other texts that were studied in religious contexts. The Bible wasn't really *enough* for the scholars in the church (even going back to St. Thomas), they wanted something more intellectual. They read and interpereted many other texts (including the Greek philosophers), and these other texts caused various revolutions within the churches (some with "scientific" elements, it's harder to seperate these things back then).
Well, I guess my stated source was "the history of science", and you could look at it yourself and see. The idea isn't mine though. I got it from some History of Science lectures I attended that put it forward.
There are two ways in which it's true. One is the very "practical" way in which "the churches" were (obviously) very involved with education, knowledge, communities etc. back then. There is, however, a much more interesting level on which it is true. That is that the idea of having an external, universal truth that you're searching for as a team; having a "canon" of accepted material documenting that truth; having institutionally-recognised experts who will teach students - these all come from monotheism.
If you look at the history of science you'll find that it couldn't have been done without using classically "religious" framework.
In my experience at least, tabs were the death of the bookmark. I hardly know of anybody who still uses the bookmark feature in their browser rather than just keeping the interesting page in a tab as a "I'll go back to that later".
"Blonde" is the correct spelling outside of the US.
I like reading marked-up books sometimes because you get an extra narrative of how another person has used it. Sometimes their notes are insightful, sometimes they're stupid and sometimes they're just odd. My favourite example of the last one is a book of poetry that I have. There's a "conversation" going on in the margin between a student and her classmate...
"Did you see the X-Men movie"
"Yes"
"What did you think?"
etc.
There we go folks.
Achievements: They're as bad as COMMUNISM!
Grading is typically done to give a particular distribution of marks. For example: a normal distribution with the mean at 63 and a standard deviation of 8. This seems unfair, the whole class could "improve" by ten marks from one year to the next but they'd still all get the same marks. The alternative is worse though, as different criteria between markers would cause massive fluctuations between them (or between the same marker in different moods). Obviously there are usually "mark schemes", but I find these tell less than half of the story. Sometimes there are pieces of work that it is very difficult to find fault with and these might end up getting "outlier" marks, but it's very hard to get 100% when the marker's attitude has switched to "what can I find wrong with this so it doesn't fuck with the distribution?".
Yeah, but which one you're addressing depends on the context. Here in the UK you can "bugger" somebody's plans, or you can "bugger up" a computer - which will take one meaning - but you can't talk about "buggering" a person without eliciting giggles.