The only job of student government in any university is to plan parties. Good for her for trying to do more.
From the letter:
The shortening of Fall Welcome may impact the organized activities of colleges and impede the acclimation of freshmen, international, and out-of-state students to the University.
Not to be overly metametapedantic* with my reply, but the definition of pedantic applies more to a post pointing out the misuse of "pedantic" (i.e., your post) than a post misusing it (the GP).
* Actually just metapedantic, since your post was only pedantic (due to the OP's not being pedantic). See above.
I'm kinda hoping they are. What I want to see come out of all of this is proportional representation and a trend toward coalition governments in Canada, rather than going back to Liberal or Conservative majorities as the governments that get things done.
MMP failed in Ontario because none of the large parties -- Liberals or Conservatives -- had any interest in pushing it. Every other reason was basically a symptom of that: a poorly-explained and poorly-advertised solution, an unclear referendum question, etc.
I'm hoping that we'll get proportional representation federally if the Liberals realize that it's in their interest, and maybe it will get stuffed through while the Conservatives have a minority.
Here is an interesting thought exercise. If you ignore Quebec (ie Quebec had separated), the Conservatives would have a majority government.
The current voting system is distorted because of a popular regional party (the Bloc), and it seems highly unlikely for any party to form a majority while the Bloc remains popular.
This is an oversimplification. What happened in Quebec was that the Conservatives had begun to position themselves as the alternative to the Liberals for federalists in Quebec. During the previous election (not the one just held), they were somewhat successful in this, and were certainly helped along by the sponsorship scandal. It seemed halfway through the campaign that they would be able to build on their previous success and were hoping to grab another 10-ish seats in Quebec, which would have put them over the top. However, a few blunders (the art funding and youth crime stuff) made those federalist voters remember that the Conservatives don't have the same socially progressive views of most Quebec -- so they went Liberal or BQ. The other interesting thing here is that the BQ aren't really seen as a "seperatist party" as much as they used to be, and so can grab federalist vote.
What is the upshot of this? Yes, the BQ distort Canadian politics -- but I think Quebec in general would lean more toward a strong Liberal party than a strong Conservative party. It's difficult to gauge in this election, since we had a strong Conservative party versus a weak Liberal party, and the BQ mopped up seats as you noted. However, to argue from this result that no party could form a majority anymore seems specious.
Also look at the low voter turnout -- no one wanted to vote in this election because we all knew the result would be another Conservative minority.
I doubt it. There has been a long term trend to lower voter turnout in Canada (and the US) for decades. I think the reason is much more complex than the current government. Personally, I blame MTV/MuchMusic and political correctness.
The trend in Canada has really only been the case since about '93 (see here for numbers and a decent discussion of the topic). I'll agree that it is more complicated than my characterization, but I think it is possible to make a distinction between factors influencing a long-term trend, and factors affecting this specific election: I maintain that there is a strong feeling that few voters actually wanted this election to happen, knowing that the outcome would be little change, and there were basically no issues (at least at the outset of the election) that warranted calling it.
(Sidebar: For something warranting a "much more complex" explanation, "MTV/MuchMusic and political correctness" is a pretty vast oversimplification.)
I don't know anyone happy with the result of this election or even the fact that we had it.
I think the NDP and the Greens are pretty happy.
Well, I'll agree that some people, including myself, are happy with the result in some ways. I'm glad that the Conservatives didn't get a majority and that more people are talking about voting reform as a result of the election. Obviously I was painting with a wide brush, but what I meant was that most people (not parties) wanted something between "no election in the first place" and "a different government", with I think a strong bias toward "no election in the first place".
Your Conservative number is wrong: it's actually a ratio of about 1.23 (still not good).
Anyway, what annoys me about the last election is that (naturally) Stephen Harper is now saying that it gave him a "new mandate" from the people to "move forward" (etc, etc). That conveniently ignores the fact that the combined NDP and Liberal popular vote is 44.44%, which is more than the Conservatives' 37.63%. The problem is that, because of vote-splitting, those parties don't have a total number of seats greater than the Conservatives despite getting more votes. If we had proportional representation, we could be looking at a coalition government (in fact, throw the Greens in there and it would be over 50%).
Consider also that the Liberals are at a historic low, and the Conservatives still couldn't pull of a majority government. I think the results of this election, rather than being an endorsement of the Conservatives by the public, are a signal that we need a better electoral system. Also look at the low voter turnout -- no one wanted to vote in this election because we all knew the result would be another Conservative minority. I don't know anyone happy with the result of this election or even the fact that we had it.
Re:It gives you something just as bad...
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 5, Funny
how does Wikipedia block experts from viewing articles in their field and why would it purposefully limit its credibility in that way?
While you're probably just being facetious, I probably should have been clearer. Obviously Wikipedia doesn't "block experts" or whatever, the point is that peer review is a specific process which Wikipedia does not use.
As to the question of "limiting credibility", I would say it's more that they have a specific goal: to be the best encyclopedia (this is refelected by policies such as "No Original Research"). Inherent in that goal is that citation of Wikipedia would be frowned upon in academic circles, just like citation of any other encyclopedia. I guess you could re-cast that as a limitation on credibility, but I would be more inclined to say that they are seeking a certain type of credibility: that of an encyclopedia.
I'm not saying it should be a primary source, but not for the reason of "it's an encyclopedia!"
Er, his point was that an encyclopedia is by definition a secondary source, and Wikipedia has policies that are meant to enforce this. When it comes to good research, as has been pointed out above and elsewhere in this discussion, primary sources are preferred for a bunch of reasons (creeping mis-/re-interpretation, citation wild goose chases, etc). Frankly, it doesn't matter how good an article on Wiki is, it should always point you to the primary source which you can read and cite.
Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field
Of course, peer review is not perfect (and some problems with it are handily documented by Wikipedia), but I don't really understand people's insistence that they be able to cite Wikipedia in acamedic situations. Importantly, lack of peer review is not the only reason citing Wikipedia is frowned upon. It has been traditional not to allow citation of encyclopedic sources for a number of reasons. Two pretty common ones off the top of my head:
An encyclopedia is always a secondary source (hence "no original research"/"citation needed"/etc on wiki); preference for working from the primary source of any research is pretty standard to avoid misinterpretation as the source gets further from the data.
The audience of an encyclopedia is more general than that of scholarly work; consequently, the information may be summarized or truncated to better reach a wider audience. That process can abstract away details that might be important to researchers but not to laypeople.
So really, why cite Wikipedia? Any information you get from it should be available (probably in more detail) in a source cited by the Wikipedia article. Any information not cited should not be used anyway.
After reading through a good chunk of this discussion, consisting entirely of the following posts:
1) Monty Hall is stupid 2) Psychologists are stupid 3) Economists are stupid 4) Psychologists and economists are stupid 5) You are stupid
I've come to the conclusion that the parent post is the only insightful thing that's going to be said.
(Yes, I recognize the irony that this post broadly falls under category 5 w.r.t. every other post but the parent. Interestingly, that does not invalidate my conclusion.)
I'll still use 'he' for indeterminate cases because I speak proper english (mostly).
Maybe it's a cultural thing. I can't think of a formal writing context in which I would expect to be able to do that.
I don't consider indeterminate 'he' to be proper anymore, and I think singular 'they' is perfectly fine. This position seems to be borne out by usage where I live: I'm honestly surprised at how widespread 'he' is on Slashdot since I can't think of anyone I know who uses it. This only adds to my surprise when I find people actually arguing that they should be using it.
Oh, and what does this have to do with non-compete agreements?
Alright, alright. I doubt you'll ever accept that you're wrong any more than I'll ever accept that I am, anyway...
No, I would probably say "they"; I don't mind a bit of descriptivism in language and singular they doesn't bother me at all.
I think your question actually hits at the point of what I mean, particularly because the opposite situation didn't even occur to me before you mentioned it: I don't use "they" to avoid stereotypes, I naturally just don't specify gender unless I know it. The need to consciously avoid a stereotype itself implies some underlying prejudice. I won't deny that I have prejudices I have to avoid (in fact I try to examine and understand my biases as much as humanly possible), but gender specificity tends not to be one of them.
You seem to keep coming back to a choice between "he" or "she", so I'll reiterate: you don't need to specify either. There are many ways not to, as I outlined in my post above. If you actually get into the habit, specifying unknown gender will seem strange and out of place.
Hmmm, as one who makes liberal use of the laziness excuse, I can see it for what it is: an excuse. Particularly among a social group known for its (often obsessive) dedication to accuracy. You are rationalizing the existence of a historical behaviour that is easily changed. The only reason people don't correct it is because they'd rather believe they haven't been wrong, and thus come up with reasons why their behaviour should continue.
Really, you are just demonstrating my point. I'm certain most people don't reason through the probability of a pronoun's correctness when typing a message on Slashdot. You are simply providing a rationale after the fact, something humans are excellent at. We're so good at it we can convince ourselves after that fact that we fully reasoned through a snap decision.
And really, if you are striving to be "as precise as [you] can be", you should realize that by specifying that which you do not know (i.e. the poster's gender), you are being more precise than you reasonably can be.
Why do you expect us to specify an information that is most likely false (assume the lawyer is female) instead of one that is most likely true (lawyer=male)?
This is a false dichotomy. I expect you to specific neither. There are many viable options available: using "one", avoiding pronoun use, rewriting sentences to utilize plural "they", or even the prescriptivists' dreaded (but increasingly popular) singular "they". Believe me, if you start doing it out of habit, it will become more natural than generic "he".
You must not write on the tubes much. Newsflash: if you go to a site that has 95%+ male readership and are surprised when people assume you're male when you have (at best) an ambiguous handle then... Well, I have nothing. You probably get surprised easily. Boo. Did that surprise you? I expect it did.
Hmm, the tone of her post seemed more annoyed than surprised: annoyed that people assume she's male, annoyed that it will happen again. I would add: annoyed that nerds are wonderfully adept at rationalizing their behaviour, as you have demonstrated.
By your reasoning, no change of widespread bigotry should ever happen. If a group is being discriminated against because 95% of the population is racist, obviously they should expect that behaviour and stop complaining about it. You know, rather than trying to solve the problem.
Of course, I suspect the main cause for the various posts reacting against her point is an underlying, subtle sexism that still pervades male nerd culture, combined with a "holier-than-thou" insistence that it could not possibly invade such a "rational" group of people. Thus, the need for people to jump up and quickly rationalize away any such sexism when it inevitably comes to the surface. In my experience, people who think they are rational are often the least rational of all.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll have to cue them before you can queue them.
From the letter:
"acclimation", i.e. party time.
Not to be overly metametapedantic* with my reply, but the definition of pedantic applies more to a post pointing out the misuse of "pedantic" (i.e., your post) than a post misusing it (the GP).
* Actually just metapedantic, since your post was only pedantic (due to the OP's not being pedantic). See above.
It's shorter you want eh? How about...
Aaaand that's my cue to go find something to do away from the computer.
I'm kinda hoping they are. What I want to see come out of all of this is proportional representation and a trend toward coalition governments in Canada, rather than going back to Liberal or Conservative majorities as the governments that get things done.
MMP failed in Ontario because none of the large parties -- Liberals or Conservatives -- had any interest in pushing it. Every other reason was basically a symptom of that: a poorly-explained and poorly-advertised solution, an unclear referendum question, etc.
I'm hoping that we'll get proportional representation federally if the Liberals realize that it's in their interest, and maybe it will get stuffed through while the Conservatives have a minority.
This is an oversimplification. What happened in Quebec was that the Conservatives had begun to position themselves as the alternative to the Liberals for federalists in Quebec. During the previous election (not the one just held), they were somewhat successful in this, and were certainly helped along by the sponsorship scandal. It seemed halfway through the campaign that they would be able to build on their previous success and were hoping to grab another 10-ish seats in Quebec, which would have put them over the top. However, a few blunders (the art funding and youth crime stuff) made those federalist voters remember that the Conservatives don't have the same socially progressive views of most Quebec -- so they went Liberal or BQ. The other interesting thing here is that the BQ aren't really seen as a "seperatist party" as much as they used to be, and so can grab federalist vote.
What is the upshot of this? Yes, the BQ distort Canadian politics -- but I think Quebec in general would lean more toward a strong Liberal party than a strong Conservative party. It's difficult to gauge in this election, since we had a strong Conservative party versus a weak Liberal party, and the BQ mopped up seats as you noted. However, to argue from this result that no party could form a majority anymore seems specious.
The trend in Canada has really only been the case since about '93 (see here for numbers and a decent discussion of the topic). I'll agree that it is more complicated than my characterization, but I think it is possible to make a distinction between factors influencing a long-term trend, and factors affecting this specific election: I maintain that there is a strong feeling that few voters actually wanted this election to happen, knowing that the outcome would be little change, and there were basically no issues (at least at the outset of the election) that warranted calling it.
(Sidebar: For something warranting a "much more complex" explanation, "MTV/MuchMusic and political correctness" is a pretty vast oversimplification.)
Well, I'll agree that some people, including myself, are happy with the result in some ways. I'm glad that the Conservatives didn't get a majority and that more people are talking about voting reform as a result of the election. Obviously I was painting with a wide brush, but what I meant was that most people (not parties) wanted something between "no election in the first place" and "a different government", with I think a strong bias toward "no election in the first place".
Heh, I'm with you on that one. Fortunately he can't say the "new Government of Canada" anymore since he was the old one.
Your Conservative number is wrong: it's actually a ratio of about 1.23 (still not good).
Anyway, what annoys me about the last election is that (naturally) Stephen Harper is now saying that it gave him a "new mandate" from the people to "move forward" (etc, etc). That conveniently ignores the fact that the combined NDP and Liberal popular vote is 44.44%, which is more than the Conservatives' 37.63%. The problem is that, because of vote-splitting, those parties don't have a total number of seats greater than the Conservatives despite getting more votes. If we had proportional representation, we could be looking at a coalition government (in fact, throw the Greens in there and it would be over 50%).
Consider also that the Liberals are at a historic low, and the Conservatives still couldn't pull of a majority government. I think the results of this election, rather than being an endorsement of the Conservatives by the public, are a signal that we need a better electoral system. Also look at the low voter turnout -- no one wanted to vote in this election because we all knew the result would be another Conservative minority. I don't know anyone happy with the result of this election or even the fact that we had it.
You don't need their IP address! Just use this handy tool.
L0l N00bs ROLFCOPTER, etc.
Are you Indian?
QED
Sorry.
Was that chapter 5, or your reaction to chapter 5?
Please advise.
I was aware of the irony :)
While you're probably just being facetious, I probably should have been clearer. Obviously Wikipedia doesn't "block experts" or whatever, the point is that peer review is a specific process which Wikipedia does not use.
As to the question of "limiting credibility", I would say it's more that they have a specific goal: to be the best encyclopedia (this is refelected by policies such as "No Original Research"). Inherent in that goal is that citation of Wikipedia would be frowned upon in academic circles, just like citation of any other encyclopedia. I guess you could re-cast that as a limitation on credibility, but I would be more inclined to say that they are seeking a certain type of credibility: that of an encyclopedia.
Er, his point was that an encyclopedia is by definition a secondary source, and Wikipedia has policies that are meant to enforce this. When it comes to good research, as has been pointed out above and elsewhere in this discussion, primary sources are preferred for a bunch of reasons (creeping mis-/re-interpretation, citation wild goose chases, etc). Frankly, it doesn't matter how good an article on Wiki is, it should always point you to the primary source which you can read and cite.
"review" != "peer review". And before you respond:
Let's see what Wikipedia itself has to say:
Of course, peer review is not perfect (and some problems with it are handily documented by Wikipedia), but I don't really understand people's insistence that they be able to cite Wikipedia in acamedic situations. Importantly, lack of peer review is not the only reason citing Wikipedia is frowned upon. It has been traditional not to allow citation of encyclopedic sources for a number of reasons. Two pretty common ones off the top of my head:
So really, why cite Wikipedia? Any information you get from it should be available (probably in more detail) in a source cited by the Wikipedia article. Any information not cited should not be used anyway.
[citation needed]
After reading through a good chunk of this discussion, consisting entirely of the following posts:
1) Monty Hall is stupid
2) Psychologists are stupid
3) Economists are stupid
4) Psychologists and economists are stupid
5) You are stupid
I've come to the conclusion that the parent post is the only insightful thing that's going to be said.
(Yes, I recognize the irony that this post broadly falls under category 5 w.r.t. every other post but the parent. Interestingly, that does not invalidate my conclusion.)
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Maybe it's a cultural thing. I can't think of a formal writing context in which I would expect to be able to do that.
I don't consider indeterminate 'he' to be proper anymore, and I think singular 'they' is perfectly fine. This position seems to be borne out by usage where I live: I'm honestly surprised at how widespread 'he' is on Slashdot since I can't think of anyone I know who uses it. This only adds to my surprise when I find people actually arguing that they should be using it.
Alright, alright. I doubt you'll ever accept that you're wrong any more than I'll ever accept that I am, anyway...
No, I would probably say "they"; I don't mind a bit of descriptivism in language and singular they doesn't bother me at all.
I think your question actually hits at the point of what I mean, particularly because the opposite situation didn't even occur to me before you mentioned it: I don't use "they" to avoid stereotypes, I naturally just don't specify gender unless I know it. The need to consciously avoid a stereotype itself implies some underlying prejudice. I won't deny that I have prejudices I have to avoid (in fact I try to examine and understand my biases as much as humanly possible), but gender specificity tends not to be one of them.
You seem to keep coming back to a choice between "he" or "she", so I'll reiterate: you don't need to specify either. There are many ways not to, as I outlined in my post above. If you actually get into the habit, specifying unknown gender will seem strange and out of place.
Haha, I can't deny it.
Hmmm, as one who makes liberal use of the laziness excuse, I can see it for what it is: an excuse. Particularly among a social group known for its (often obsessive) dedication to accuracy. You are rationalizing the existence of a historical behaviour that is easily changed. The only reason people don't correct it is because they'd rather believe they haven't been wrong, and thus come up with reasons why their behaviour should continue.
Really, you are just demonstrating my point. I'm certain most people don't reason through the probability of a pronoun's correctness when typing a message on Slashdot. You are simply providing a rationale after the fact, something humans are excellent at. We're so good at it we can convince ourselves after that fact that we fully reasoned through a snap decision.
And really, if you are striving to be "as precise as [you] can be", you should realize that by specifying that which you do not know (i.e. the poster's gender), you are being more precise than you reasonably can be.
This is a false dichotomy. I expect you to specific neither. There are many viable options available: using "one", avoiding pronoun use, rewriting sentences to utilize plural "they", or even the prescriptivists' dreaded (but increasingly popular) singular "they". Believe me, if you start doing it out of habit, it will become more natural than generic "he".
Hmm, the tone of her post seemed more annoyed than surprised: annoyed that people assume she's male, annoyed that it will happen again. I would add: annoyed that nerds are wonderfully adept at rationalizing their behaviour, as you have demonstrated.
By your reasoning, no change of widespread bigotry should ever happen. If a group is being discriminated against because 95% of the population is racist, obviously they should expect that behaviour and stop complaining about it. You know, rather than trying to solve the problem.
Of course, I suspect the main cause for the various posts reacting against her point is an underlying, subtle sexism that still pervades male nerd culture, combined with a "holier-than-thou" insistence that it could not possibly invade such a "rational" group of people. Thus, the need for people to jump up and quickly rationalize away any such sexism when it inevitably comes to the surface. In my experience, people who think they are rational are often the least rational of all.