... clearly, you think knowing this is a bad thing, and that one should never encourage people to educate themselves. Because only the current meaning is relevant.
When did I EVER say that???
What do you think would happen if suddenly texts of laws meant what the general public thought they meant (mostly nothing at all) ?
OK, now you're just trying to infuriate me, just so I give up and stop arguing. But I'll give it one more shot -- ALL language has a purpose. Purpose defines context. Context determines how a word/sentence/text should be interpreted, which also means context suggests how ideas should be encoded into text to be communicated with maximum efficiency. This means different things in different contexts -- efficiency in academic texts largely means lack of ambiguity, with ease of understanding being only secondary. In news, it's more balanced -- it's important that people be able to understand a news article without too much effort. In novels, efficiency means, well, pretty much anything.
Uh... I was going to start explaining how there is a difference between the contexts in which people use the term "broadband" to mean "fast connection" vs. the one where the term still has its original meaning, but frankly, if you don't get that yet, I won't even bother.
Do you even try to understand what I'm saying, or do you want to stick your fingers in your ears and keep repeating that nice-sounding, haughty mantra about ignorance? There must be some [near-]absolute truth for one to be ignorant of it. So I'm asking, who gets to decide what the true meaning of a word is? You? Some authority nobody gives a crap about? Or perhaps the millions of people who attribute a certain meaning to a word? Who says your opinion is more valid than theirs? And, who cares what the origin of a word is? You think you don't use any words today that meant something completely different two centuries, or even a few decades ago?
Oh, and the same applies to grammar -- I can say "what did you step on" all I want, and the entire English-speaking population of the world will know what I mean. No grammar Nazi will make me change the way I speak/write if it serves my purposes just fine.
According to who? God? The word fairy? Oxford-English dictionary? Words existed long before any such pseudo-authority was created. You use words so others can understand you, period.
Aha, words mean what people want them to mean. That may have been the origin of the term, but for the majority of people, that is not the primary meaning.
Almost, though I think it's more like: when your animals start making noise, your neighbor starts complaining that you're too noisy, which is hypocritical of them 'cause their animals make just as much noise. The part about the puck is just a colorful way of saying "right back at ya!", i.e. you shouldn't lecture us about free press if you're arresting the only real journalist the West has left (I'm extrapolating a little bit, but that was the spirit of what he said).
Look, that's certainly true, but we're talking about distributions here. I've seen stupid people in academia, and I've seen smart people in the general population. But here in academia, if I walk up to someone and strike up a conversation about some complex issue that perhaps one or both of us aren't very familiar with, 99% of the time I'll come out with a greater understanding of the issue than I had before. I learn something, just by accessing the intelligence of that other person. In the general population, 99% of the time the best I can hope for is a complete lack of interest from the other person or a few very stupid comments that make me sorry I started the conversation.
So yeah, academia ain't no intellectual utopia, but there is a difference...
Now suppose I move your brain's data into another organic brain, electronic brain, or anything else of the source. Would you continue to "live"? Would YOU continue to live?
This is a non-existent (i.e. ill-posed) question, because you haven't defined life and, more importantly, you haven't defined individuality. There exist many philosophies/schools of thought where the whole idea of existence is rejected, let alone perpetuity of an individual. In fact, most systems of belief/philosophies would say that "you" are just as different from a perfect copy of yourself as you're different from yourself a day, second, or nanosecond ago.
Just yesterday I was talking with someone about how IBM have devolved into patent trolls that do no worthwhile research. Have I been proven wrong, or is this just vaporware? Anyone with the knowledge to do so, please enlighten me!
I think the word you're looking for is "mandate." AFAIK, Interpol has no jurisdiction. They're essentially an intelligence agency, that facilitate information sharing between agencies across borders.
Heh, good point. By the same standards, all of academia should have a huge VAPORWARE sticker on it (not that I think there's a problem with that -- I'm complicit, being a graduate student and all)
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations, you managed to completely miss the point.
... clearly, you think knowing this is a bad thing, and that one should never encourage people to educate themselves. Because only the current meaning is relevant.
When did I EVER say that???
What do you think would happen if suddenly texts of laws meant what the general public thought they meant (mostly nothing at all) ?
OK, now you're just trying to infuriate me, just so I give up and stop arguing. But I'll give it one more shot -- ALL language has a purpose. Purpose defines context. Context determines how a word/sentence/text should be interpreted, which also means context suggests how ideas should be encoded into text to be communicated with maximum efficiency. This means different things in different contexts -- efficiency in academic texts largely means lack of ambiguity, with ease of understanding being only secondary. In news, it's more balanced -- it's important that people be able to understand a news article without too much effort. In novels, efficiency means, well, pretty much anything.
Uh... I was going to start explaining how there is a difference between the contexts in which people use the term "broadband" to mean "fast connection" vs. the one where the term still has its original meaning, but frankly, if you don't get that yet, I won't even bother.
Do you even try to understand what I'm saying, or do you want to stick your fingers in your ears and keep repeating that nice-sounding, haughty mantra about ignorance? There must be some [near-]absolute truth for one to be ignorant of it. So I'm asking, who gets to decide what the true meaning of a word is? You? Some authority nobody gives a crap about? Or perhaps the millions of people who attribute a certain meaning to a word? Who says your opinion is more valid than theirs? And, who cares what the origin of a word is? You think you don't use any words today that meant something completely different two centuries, or even a few decades ago?
Oh, and the same applies to grammar -- I can say "what did you step on" all I want, and the entire English-speaking population of the world will know what I mean. No grammar Nazi will make me change the way I speak/write if it serves my purposes just fine.
According to who? God? The word fairy? Oxford-English dictionary? Words existed long before any such pseudo-authority was created. You use words so others can understand you, period.
Aha, words mean what people want them to mean. That may have been the origin of the term, but for the majority of people, that is not the primary meaning.
Almost, though I think it's more like: when your animals start making noise, your neighbor starts complaining that you're too noisy, which is hypocritical of them 'cause their animals make just as much noise. The part about the puck is just a colorful way of saying "right back at ya!", i.e. you shouldn't lecture us about free press if you're arresting the only real journalist the West has left (I'm extrapolating a little bit, but that was the spirit of what he said).
First an AC rant, then freaking MichaelKristopeitNNN makes an appearance...
oh come on, it was a joke! these people have no sense of humor...
i don't get it...
i.e. man fucking sheep.
Just so no modders get confused, this is a joke. Or rather, it is a depressingly accurate imitation of typical shameless communist propaganda.
That's the spirit, let it all out! We're happy to hear to the woes of the few among us who have ever had social contact with the opposite sex ;]
heh, yeah, i LOLed at that terminology too... they're acting like 3rd party software is some kind of revolution. jeeesus...
people don't want to be tied down to one physical location any more, and that's what's going to change.
wait, i thought that's what laptops were for...
Dude, you should be a teacher or something... I've never experienced this kind of clarity before! :]
Nicely done, indeed! BTW, LaTeX >> God.
Look, that's certainly true, but we're talking about distributions here. I've seen stupid people in academia, and I've seen smart people in the general population. But here in academia, if I walk up to someone and strike up a conversation about some complex issue that perhaps one or both of us aren't very familiar with, 99% of the time I'll come out with a greater understanding of the issue than I had before. I learn something, just by accessing the intelligence of that other person. In the general population, 99% of the time the best I can hope for is a complete lack of interest from the other person or a few very stupid comments that make me sorry I started the conversation.
So yeah, academia ain't no intellectual utopia, but there is a difference...
How about a car sex analogy?
I'm thoroughly humbled by the fact that I have no friggin idea what the summary is saying. Can someone explain this to me in simple terms?
meh, just print it to a pdf, then preview all you want...
Now suppose I move your brain's data into another organic brain, electronic brain, or anything else of the source. Would you continue to "live"? Would YOU continue to live?
This is a non-existent (i.e. ill-posed) question, because you haven't defined life and, more importantly, you haven't defined individuality. There exist many philosophies/schools of thought where the whole idea of existence is rejected, let alone perpetuity of an individual. In fact, most systems of belief/philosophies would say that "you" are just as different from a perfect copy of yourself as you're different from yourself a day, second, or nanosecond ago.
Just yesterday I was talking with someone about how IBM have devolved into patent trolls that do no worthwhile research. Have I been proven wrong, or is this just vaporware? Anyone with the knowledge to do so, please enlighten me!
I think the word you're looking for is "mandate." AFAIK, Interpol has no jurisdiction. They're essentially an intelligence agency, that facilitate information sharing between agencies across borders.
Heh, good point. By the same standards, all of academia should have a huge VAPORWARE sticker on it (not that I think there's a problem with that -- I'm complicit, being a graduate student and all)