Did he, though? When you follow someone, are you really asking for more of the same? And if so, more of what? Information on a topic or people agreeing with a particular view within that topic?
Is it sane that your entry point into a field should decide exclusively what sort of information you are fed?
Umm, so, is your point... a) that Germany's Federal Office for Information Security did not in fact issue such a statement? b) that phys.org did not in fact report on it? c) that those facts are somehow invalidated when someone you don't like links to them? d) that media like slashdot should refrain from reporting on events like these?
I think that's a pretty exahaustive list of options. Interestingly, they all imply your're a complete moron.
That would have to be N! * N (permutations * episodes in each). But no.
Am I misunderstanding what they are computing?
Yes.
Given a series of length n = 3, if you watch this sequence:
1, 2, 3, 1, 2 you have also watched all the following complete sequences:
1, 2, 3
2, 3, 1
3, 1, 2 while having only watched 5 episodes, not 9.
Amen to that. What never ceases to puzzle me is why there are so few programmers with a bit of #1 in them. Sure, there are lots of coders who value their own ability to master complex shit over all else, to the detriment of everyone around them, but surely at least the ones who value clean code should also be motivated to learn some usability basics?
"The User Interface is the buttons, hierarchy of menu, graphical cues, etc. It can all be written as a guideline,"
Umm, no. That is like saying checkstyle can design your system for you. Styleguides are good, both for UIs and code, but they cannot replace design, and that goes both for up-front and incremental design.
Anything but the most trivial user interface needs a coherent vision of how the interaction is meant to flow in order to end up any good. Many have none, and end up terrible to use as a result. Some get by by copying something that *was* designed competently, but even then they often get the little (or big) things wrong because they have not understood the reasons behind the model design.
Reliably creating and maintaining a good interaction model requires some knowledge of how people use systems, and at least a minimum of user testing. None of this is impossible for an interested developer to learn, but it does require some investment.
I can't imagine a kid who plays on swings, makes forts out of snow or cardboard boxes, and lies on his back looking at clouds, growing up to be a killer.
Let's all agree not to use your imagination, which unsurprisingly is just that, as the basis for shaping our policies on mental health, guns, or anything else.
" I'm still waiting on a link to a dictionary of any repute with a completely different 'trade-definition' of the word fruit that involves tomatoes, but not other fruits."
You will have to wait a long time, because I have insinuated no such thing. What I have said is that in the context of trade and by extension laws regulating trade, it is reasonable to apply the common usage og "fruit", not the botaincal one, (provided of course that the law does not provide its own delineation)
I have so far resisted doing your homework for you, but you finally wore me out. Here you go, the first three that came to mind, enough that I didn't go any further:
Oxford English Dictionary:
fruit NOUN 1 The sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food. 1.1 Botany....
Encycploedia Britannica:
Fruit, in its strict botanical sense, the fleshy or dry ripened ovary of a plant, enclosing the seed or seeds. Thus, apricots, bananas, and grapes, as well as bean pods, corn grains, tomatoes, cucumbers, and (in their shells) acorns and almonds, are all technically fruits. Popularly, however, the term is restricted to the ripened ovaries that are sweet and either succulent or pulpy.
Wikipedia:
In common language usage, "fruit" normally means the fleshy seed-associated structures of a plant that are sweet or sour, and edible in the raw state, such as apples, bananas, grapes, lemons, oranges, and strawberries. On the other hand, in botanical usage, "fruit" includes many structures that are not commonly called "fruits", such as bean pods, corn kernels, tomatoes, and wheat grains.[2][3] The section of a fungus that produces spores is also called a fruiting body.[4]
I realize that you probably do not recognize Wikipedia as a reputable source. I would argue its crowdsourcuing nature makes it at least as useful as any for establishing what is common usage. In any case it is in agreeement with the others.
I would like to point out that none of these elevate any definition as the "correct", "factual", or "real" one. That is purely your own construction. On the contrary thay all go out of their way to delineate the context for each meaning.
You are of course entitled to your opinion that justice and society would be best served if the law by default borrows missing definitions from science rather than from common usage. I, and the SCOTUS, respectfully disagree.
"What a mess one would be in, if in science everyone used his own meaning of a word"
We were not discussing science, we were discussing tax law.
But even in science it is in fact extremely common for scientific fields to introduce their own highly specific meanings of common words, often at odds with other scientific fields and of course quite different venues of human activity.
The usage in question is not arbitrary at all, it is well established common usage and this is easy to document. Granted, the court did a terrible job of describing and reasoning about it, but it still exists.
Also, your logic is not as stringent as you think. Dismissing those in disagreement with your conclusion as ignorant is circular reasoning. Your conclusion ends up depending on your conclusion.
"going the other route makes (and devolves) into nothing sensible at all."
As does yours. I agree that the law should be sent back to the drawing board, explaining more clearly what it tries to accomplish and where the lines should be drawn. But that takes time, and would in any case only apply to cases after the new law is passed. In the meantime it is the court's job to settle how citizens should reasonably have expected the law as it stands to be applied. A special tax exemption based strictly on what structural part of a plant an ingredient happens to be from has clearly nonsensical results that noone could have actually intended. If laws were routinely interpreted in this way, it would indeed devolve into an incomprehensible maze with no sense or clear purpouse.
You are claiming reality is subservient to your misapplied dictionary article. It is not.
There is nothing scientific about blindly transporting the meaning a word has in one context into another where it already has a different one. And picking one particular source context is as arbitrary as any of the things your are complaining about.
You might wish that words had a single uiniversal meaning, but simply pretending that they do is just wilful ignorance.
"I don't think I'm being unreasonable in stating this principle"
I do. Anything can be extended into the unreasonable.
First of all, it is well established in law that the intent of the lawmaker can be a valid concern. Granted, along with others, such as predictability and rigor you put above all else.
Fruit: a fruit is the seed-bearing structure in flowering plants (also known as angiosperms).
However you look at it, thus, tomatoes are fruits.
Nope. That is the botanical definition. It applies if you look at it the botanical way.
Words do not in general have a single meaning or definition. The word "fruit" far predates the botanical sense, and indeed botany itself. Botany does not "own" it, and does not get to define it in the context of trade any more than physics get to define "work" in the context of employment contracts.
It is perfectly logical to assume a law regulating trade uses the language of trade. What they should have been more diligent and clear about is looking to the purpouse and history behind the difference in tax level. I think it is safe to state bluntly that its existence has nothing to do with bearing seeds or not, and everything to do with common-usage trade categories. What you or I think those categories ought to be like is immaterial. What matters is only how in fact are used.
For your interpretation to hold up the tax rules for fruit would also automatically apply to whole nuts but not shelled nuts, whole rice but not polished rice, black pepper but not cinnamon, etc. etc. Botanically correct and yet utterly lacking any sane purpouse.
Your interpretation is not more logical or rational, than the court's, it is just based on a different set of assumptions.
Slashdot Mirror
...what they ask to be shown
Did he, though?
When you follow someone, are you really asking for more of the same?
And if so, more of what?
Information on a topic or people agreeing with a particular view within that topic?
Is it sane that your entry point into a field should decide exclusively what sort of information you are fed?
I fail
Indeed.
Am I missing something?
Yes.
Measuring the speed of the wave is indeed trivial.
Where is the relevance to the stated problem.
There are really 4 or even 5 groups in this debate
No.
Please illustrate with examples from your own body of scientific work.
That inventor refused to publish.
Patents require you to publish.
Patents exist precisely to avoid situations like this,
You are arguing FOR patents.
Umm, so, is your point...
a) that Germany's Federal Office for Information Security did not in fact issue such a statement?
b) that phys.org did not in fact report on it?
c) that those facts are somehow invalidated when someone you don't like links to them?
d) that media like slashdot should refrain from reporting on events like these?
I think that's a pretty exahaustive list of options.
Interestingly, they all imply your're a complete moron.
No. If your workplace is "not healthy", that means something is wrong.
The experience of watching 1,2,3,1,2 would not be at all the same as watching 1,2,3 ; 2,3,1 ; and 3,1,2
Ah, but can you prove it?
Isn't this just N!?
That would have to be N! * N (permutations * episodes in each).
But no.
Am I misunderstanding what they are computing?
Yes.
Given a series of length n = 3, if you watch this sequence:
1, 2, 3, 1, 2
you have also watched all the following complete sequences:
1, 2, 3
2, 3, 1
3, 1, 2
while having only watched 5 episodes, not 9.
Amen to that. What never ceases to puzzle me is why there are so few programmers with a bit of #1 in them. Sure, there are lots of coders who value their own ability to master complex shit over all else, to the detriment of everyone around them, but surely at least the ones who value clean code should also be motivated to learn some usability basics?
"The User Interface is the buttons, hierarchy of menu, graphical cues, etc. It can all be written as a guideline,"
Umm, no. That is like saying checkstyle can design your system for you. Styleguides are good, both for UIs and code, but they cannot replace design, and that goes both for up-front and incremental design.
Anything but the most trivial user interface needs a coherent vision of how the interaction is meant to flow in order to end up any good.
Many have none, and end up terrible to use as a result. Some get by by copying something that *was* designed competently, but even then they often get the little (or big) things wrong because they have not understood the reasons behind the model design.
Reliably creating and maintaining a good interaction model requires some knowledge of how people use systems, and at least a minimum of user testing. None of this is impossible for an interested developer to learn, but it does require some investment.
Shitty ones.
Maybe before trying to explain a correlation you should check if such a correlation actually exists?
I can't imagine a kid who plays on swings, makes forts out of snow or cardboard boxes, and lies on his back looking at clouds, growing up to be a killer.
Let's all agree not to use your imagination, which unsurprisingly is just that, as the basis for shaping our policies on mental health, guns, or anything else.
In countries with sane healthcare the costs from alcohol related problems easily outweights the tax revenue from it.
Here we go again with the lazy dismissals.
Global weather is very much climate.
intensity of forest fires are the result of decades of misguided policy of preventing all forest fires
Locally, yes, it certainly doesn't help. When fires are up in isolated arctic wildernesses, that's something else.
" I'm still waiting on a link to a dictionary of any repute with a completely different 'trade-definition' of the word fruit that involves tomatoes, but not other fruits."
You will have to wait a long time, because I have insinuated no such thing.
What I have said is that in the context of trade and by extension laws regulating trade, it is reasonable to apply the common usage og "fruit", not the botaincal one, (provided of course that the law does not provide its own delineation)
I have so far resisted doing your homework for you, but you finally wore me out.
Here you go, the first three that came to mind, enough that I didn't go any further:
Oxford English Dictionary:
fruit NOUN ...
1 The sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food.
1.1 Botany.
Encycploedia Britannica:
Fruit, in its strict botanical sense, the fleshy or dry ripened ovary of a plant, enclosing the seed or seeds. Thus, apricots, bananas, and grapes, as well as bean pods, corn grains, tomatoes, cucumbers, and (in their shells) acorns and almonds, are all technically fruits. Popularly, however, the term is restricted to the ripened ovaries that are sweet and either succulent or pulpy.
Wikipedia:
In common language usage, "fruit" normally means the fleshy seed-associated structures of a plant that are sweet or sour, and edible in the raw state, such as apples, bananas, grapes, lemons, oranges, and strawberries. On the other hand, in botanical usage, "fruit" includes many structures that are not commonly called "fruits", such as bean pods, corn kernels, tomatoes, and wheat grains.[2][3] The section of a fungus that produces spores is also called a fruiting body.[4]
I realize that you probably do not recognize Wikipedia as a reputable source. I would argue its crowdsourcuing nature makes it at least as useful as any for establishing what is common usage. In any case it is in agreeement with the others.
I would like to point out that none of these elevate any definition as the "correct", "factual", or "real" one. That is purely your own construction. On the contrary thay all go out of their way to delineate the context for each meaning.
You are of course entitled to your opinion that justice and society would be best served if the law by default borrows missing definitions from science rather than from common usage.
I, and the SCOTUS, respectfully disagree.
"What a mess one would be in, if in science everyone used his own meaning of a word"
We were not discussing science, we were discussing tax law.
But even in science it is in fact extremely common for scientific fields to introduce their own highly specific meanings of common words, often at odds with other scientific fields and of course quite different venues of human activity.
The usage in question is not arbitrary at all, it is well established common usage and this is easy to document. Granted, the court did a terrible job of describing and reasoning about it, but it still exists.
Also, your logic is not as stringent as you think. Dismissing those in disagreement with your conclusion as ignorant is circular reasoning. Your conclusion ends up depending on your conclusion.
"going the other route makes (and devolves) into nothing sensible at all."
As does yours.
I agree that the law should be sent back to the drawing board, explaining more clearly what it tries to accomplish and where the lines should be drawn. But that takes time, and would in any case only apply to cases after the new law is passed. In the meantime it is the court's job to settle how citizens should reasonably have expected the law as it stands to be applied. A special tax exemption based strictly on what structural part of a plant an ingredient happens to be from has clearly nonsensical results that noone could have actually intended. If laws were routinely interpreted in this way, it would indeed devolve into an incomprehensible maze with no sense or clear purpouse.
"Everything that is a fruit, would be considered a fruit. Whether it's peeled or not."
A shelled nut is just a seed. Are all seeds fruit? Is rice fruit? Flour?
The world is not as simple as you think.
You are claiming reality is subservient to your misapplied dictionary article. It is not.
There is nothing scientific about blindly transporting the meaning a word has in one context into another where it already has a different one. And picking one particular source context is as arbitrary as any of the things your are complaining about.
You might wish that words had a single uiniversal meaning, but simply pretending that they do is just wilful ignorance.
"I don't think I'm being unreasonable in stating this principle"
I do. Anything can be extended into the unreasonable.
First of all, it is well established in law that the intent of the lawmaker can be a valid concern. Granted, along with others, such as predictability and rigor you put above all else.
Fruit: a fruit is the seed-bearing structure in flowering plants (also known as angiosperms).
However you look at it, thus, tomatoes are fruits.
Nope. That is the botanical definition.
It applies if you look at it the botanical way.
Words do not in general have a single meaning or definition.
The word "fruit" far predates the botanical sense, and indeed botany itself. Botany does not "own" it, and does not get to define it in the context of trade any more than physics get to define "work" in the context of employment contracts.
It is perfectly logical to assume a law regulating trade uses the language of trade.
What they should have been more diligent and clear about is looking to the purpouse and history behind the difference in tax level. I think it is safe to state bluntly that its existence has nothing to do with bearing seeds or not, and everything to do with common-usage trade categories. What you or I think those categories ought to be like is immaterial. What matters is only how in fact are used.
For your interpretation to hold up the tax rules for fruit would also automatically apply to whole nuts but not shelled nuts, whole rice but not polished rice, black pepper but not cinnamon, etc. etc. Botanically correct and yet utterly lacking any sane purpouse.
Your interpretation is not more logical or rational, than the court's, it is just based on a different set of assumptions.