The use of little, given that it doesn't correspond with size, implies that the Mac is inherently "less" than any other PC -- something that's been argued ad infinitum for sure, but I think most people here would agree that the Mac eclipses Windows and Linux in many ways. In this specific context, the use of the word "little" seems to only be used to state that the user isn't good enough for Windows or Linux.
That's pretty condescending.
Ok, I'll bite.
I agree that the phrase is condescending, but for different reasons. I do not think the phrase: "nice little Macintosh computer" is not being used to say that the computer is in any way actually "little" or "less". 'Little' as used here is a diminuitive, as in: "my little darling". The problem is, is that 'little' is a charged word, and without proper context the listener might not understand the sense it is being used in--they may find it to be ironic. Thus the phrase may come off as demeaning to the listener, as in, "hey, how do you not know about this computer?" For example:
A: "Where do I file my taxes?"
B: "There is this *little* department called the IRS. You should check it out."
Here the usage of the word "little" is feigned humility. It is meant to draw ironic contrast to the ubiquity of the entity in question. This is how I beleive that phrase would likely be interpreted.
Though I imagine someone could take your slant as well.
I don't see panicking as a valid reason to do anything, though.
The only thing I am panicking over is will we be able to get the US administration to give a shit about the environment. We have seen enough evidence to the contrary that I believe this to be sufficient reasoning for a *panic*.
Do they *not* have separate programs at the schools you are familiar with? I went through a "Computer Science and Mathematics" functional degree (which was in the *Math* department). The school, however, (and it was a lowly state school), had another department, Computer Information Systems. This was software engineering with a management bent. I would find it odd if my alma matter was that progressive.
For example, take just about anyone from Accenture (formerly Anderson Consulting). These are kids off the street who were looking for a job. Accenture says, "want to do computers?" and they go for it. Many of them can become halfway decent developers with the proper guidance and training, but unless you hire them off of Accenture you lose a lot of work once they leave.
Either you're wrong about Accenture, or I'm more pathetic than I thought. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that the programmers they have are substandard. However, I had graduated with a computer science degree, and even had some experience with some database work at the university I had attended while obtaining my undergrad when I applied at accenture. It came down to me and one other fellow, and they went with the other fellow because he "had more experience". I understand that this is a somewhat "canned response", but I had felt that the interview went rather well on my end (though I walked away feeling they were a very unprofessional firm). Now, I may not have had as rigorous of a curiculum as I should have had, yet I was hardly "off the street." In the end, I am glad that I didn't get the job at accenture because I don't think it would have lasted that long--perhaps they sniffed out that I would become malcontent quite early in the job. At any rate, my denial allowed me the time to work on my Master's in Mathematics.
ahem... NO matter how much we would like to think to the contrary (or even if it is assumed when some of us write our resumes) knowing how to do something is *not* the same as being able to look it up on the internet. We are damn spoiled.
And I thought he was making reference to transparent as in: "Free from pretense or deceit"...or "open to scrutiny". Of course, translucent has this meaning as well.
I'm not making this stuff up. This stuff is far from unusual; in any reasonably large department there's going to be someone who's too incompetent to ever get anywhere in the research side of things, so where do they wind up? Teaching undergraduate courses instead. The best minds cloister themselves in research and graduate classes; the worst minds get to teach the next generation.
This is perhaps the best argument for getting your undergraduate at a *small* school. You don't have to buy into the prestige game to get a decent education. Of course, graduate school is an entirely different situation.
There are many kinds of shapes that are possible, some "space filling" and some not. (I am sure there is a more correct technical term from topology to describe "space filling".). It's simpler than you think. The term you want (if I understand you correctly) is dense. Though there is no measure of how dense a set is, merely if it is dense or not.
Exactly. I also find it amusing when I hear figures like this one: albums are listened to (on average) 7 times. Seven times! Any decent album should stick with you for life.
I always thought that that arguments (about only wanting a few tracks) was a very weak one. I do however, like p2p (with the help of reviews & fan sites and such) to find out who to check out next. I'm currently grooving to Cibelle, TV on the Radio, and 8 bit Rockers now, and where the hell else would I been able to hear them?
BTW: TV on the Radio is *definately* a Band to Watch (tm). First secondhand vinyl/obscure/underground record store I can find them in will definately be frequented by me from then on out. Unfortunately, I'm in the middle of nowhere right now, and don't get to hit the good stores very often.
160 GB disk. So what? How many offices don't have a server to store everything on?
Umm.... how about most of them? Or better yet, maybe their desktops workstations out-perform their server. There are a variety of different office environments, with varying levels of technical support.
That said, I still think this notebook would be overkill for less tech-savy environments.
Note: We have a rather low-end iSeries, so I recognize my shot was rather cheap.
this is a traditional Joint effect causal fallacy. Pedophiles watch/look at child pornography because they want to have sex with children. It tends to happen first because it is often easier and/or has less severe consequences.
Quoting someone as stating that their problem started with an obsession with pornography is equally fallacious--why should we trust their self diagnosis? Should we not recognize this simply as when the individual first became aware of their problem? If we take into account the subconscious, the reasoning should become immediately clear.
As for your demonstrations, 1+1=2: We can say it is true, precisely because 2 is defined to be the successor to 1, namely that 1*=2 . Furthermore, As (N,+) is defined, 1+1 = 1* = 2.
This, of course, does nothing to counter this gist of your arugment... it was only your method with which I objected.
In college, and a good one [whitman.edu] at that, many of my professors were amazed that more than half of students still didn't understand the differences between "its" and "it's", "their," "they're" and "there," or "your" and "you're". I even ran across the occasional student in grad school [uchicago.edu] who had this problem..
This statement is just plain ridiculous. If someone makes such a mistake with two homophonous words, it doesn't indicate that they don't know the difference between them. It only indicates that they were not careful with their spelling. It's a mistake I occasionally make myself, but I guarantee I know the difference. It pisses me off to no end (just now I damn near wrote know end, perhaps because I had just used the word?) when someone assumes otherwise.
Re:Mathematics not universal?
on
The Golden Ratio
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Thank you for pointing out some of the particulars of what I would have hoped to say, but lack the familiarity to speak about with much certainty. The PoEM is one such point of contention I had in mind, and (to some extent) illustrates my point.
This is where I wish to focus my discussion, as I see it primarily where we differ:
Constructivists and Classicists recognize that each other are doing Mathematics, getting the mostly same results, but by different rules, different means -- and cherishing where there are demonstrable differences in what can be proven.
Certainly, they recognize each other as "doing" mathematics. Just as we might recognize another species or such as "doing" mathematics even if it does appear radically different from ours. I appologize if you found my use of the word "politics" inflammatory, perhaps I was simply using it in looser manner than you might expect, I also don't wish to single out mathematics in this charge--I believe much of what we hold as acceptable means for establishing "truth" is indeed "politically" motivated. Or to put it another way, is ultimately determined through appeals to power. Certainly we cannot appeal to reason in establishing what reason is, as it is not yet properly established (or would you say we can as this argument itself is based on reason--eh? You see the difficulty? How do we escape what we've already assumed?). Now, you would be right to say that I'm using an exlcuded middle within this argument (in a rather fallacious way). I would like to hear any ideas from you regarding how we might go about establishing rules of inference (not that if you failed it would prove my point). I am genuinely interested.
I would go even further to say that they idea itself that we can infer anything through any rules (or at least, assuredly infer) is itself a politcally motivated idea. I don't buy that we have such a gurantee, or that another "intelligent" species would perceive things in the same manner that we do.
This is the social construct that is mathematics. That said, I do not believe that thinking this way about mathematics diminishes mathematics in any way, nor is it my intention to use this push some other agenda. Mathematics is a usefull tool, one that we have created. I only think it imperative to recognize how we intimately relate to this tool.
Re:Mathematics not universal?
on
The Golden Ratio
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Whose to say they couldn't have different argumentative rules for what "proves" a result?
Or a different philosophy for what is a sound, provable result. I think there is more politics in mathematics than you'd wish to admit.
Re:Mathematics not universal?
on
The Golden Ratio
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'm going to take the time to respond to this post at some length, because I feel it raises certain issues that need to be addressed. I hope to address them in a manner conmensurate with their depth. Please bear with this analysis of your arguments.
Wow, the shear ignorance in this entire article and book write-up is amazing. Not to truly upset anyone, but everyone here on Slashdot also appears to have a high school alegbra or entry level college mathematics background.
Personally, I was rather surprised at the book review myself. I have found, however, many fine folk here on slashdot who appear to have a solid theoretical background in mathematics, perhaps they are hiding out on this one.
To start with, Mathematics is not just as human as poetry. Where do you get that idea? Yes, pure mathematics (which is my passion in life) is essentially pure thought. BUT, nothing in mathematics is just 'made up'. All mathematics is based on fundamental, logical axioms (truths), and if anything were to violate those axioms, or the completely logical conclusions drawn therefrom, it would not be mathematics.
I find this is an odd thing for a self-styled mathematician to say. First, I would not label axioms as "truths" but rather as "putative truths". That is their purpose (to be putative). They are styled from not only as "seeming to be true" or appealing to intuition, but also in their ability to form a basis of thought, their simplicity, a small number is required for important results (as in defining a system), and their seeming irreducibility. Axioms are usually formed "post hoc", with an idea of the desired results in mind. Don't you find it disconcerting that in Topology the definition for an open set in a metric is a union of open balls, but an open set in a topologcial system is definied simply as that which exists in the topology? It's a function of how strong of results you have, and later developments are "force fit" into prior studies. Much like topological systems are "force fit" into Metric systems by how they are to be constructed, thus claiming itself an abstraction of the latter.
Furthermore, you claim that any results that contradict the "fundamental" axioms, is not properly called mathematics? You are aware of the results of Godel and his Incompleteness Theorem? It's more than the latest rave, it has results that bear directly on what you are oh-so-devoutly avering. In this light, what is mathematics, when it is either incomplete or contradictory? And quite often it is contradictory? Which set of axioms is the more fundamental one you wish to choose? And how do you choose it? These are problematic questions, with unforthcoming answers. Modern mathematics is rattled as it has been faced with it's own, ultimate, incompetence. It describes nothing but itself.
You can think of mathematics as a grand puzzle, with each discovered piece and each mathematical truth found spelling out a larger picture. You can create bogus logic, bogus mathematical problems but it does not make it true mathematics.
Disregarding your mixed metaphor "spelling out a larger picture", this doesn't make much sense to me. I guess I don't understand how you are differentiating bogus mathematics and true mathematics.
You are also confusing human representation with mathematics in your other statements. On a fundamental level, a law is a law, mathematically/physically/logically/universally.
On what fundamental level? What is a law? How is one to determine what is a law? And what is derived from a law? Or what is contradictory to a law? I do agree that the grandparent poster did mix things up when he contrasted mathematics to physics et al.
The universe is not ruled by human imagination (i.e. completely imaginary human created friend(s) as in religions) and therefore the system to understand o
So it seems that they are deliberately introducing flaws in their two-sided document printing...
Actually, they may or may not actually do this. This was simply a suggestion put forward by HP. They're not allowed to tell us what they'll actually end up doing.
personally, if I were to try to hookup with someone, I wouldn't want my *friends* to know about it. It very well may be something I would be hearing about for quite some time. This is the advantage of *actual physical* proximity. You can test out someone's reaction to you *without seeming to*. This, I believe, will be the primary barrier in the widespread adoption of these services.
That said, that doesn't mean that unexpected uses of these services won't develop. I just don't see it as a dating tool (which seems to be the slant on this).
we can't fight to gain rights, we fight to be able to express those "inaliable" rights.
Aha! But we can fight to make someone percieve that a claimed right is an inalienable right. When you get down to it, what *is* an inalienable right beside a matter of perspective?
In this light, an "inalienable right" is an oxymoron as anyone can certainly "alienate" it through a different world-view.
Slashdot Mirror
While not protecting you from contracting one, this will certainly let you know if you have a virus and will clean it for you if you do.
That's pretty condescending.
Ok, I'll bite.
I agree that the phrase is condescending, but for different reasons. I do not think the phrase: "nice little Macintosh computer" is not being used to say that the computer is in any way actually "little" or "less". 'Little' as used here is a diminuitive, as in: "my little darling". The problem is, is that 'little' is a charged word, and without proper context the listener might not understand the sense it is being used in--they may find it to be ironic. Thus the phrase may come off as demeaning to the listener, as in, "hey, how do you not know about this computer?" For example:
A: "Where do I file my taxes?"
B: "There is this *little* department called the IRS. You should check it out."
Here the usage of the word "little" is feigned humility. It is meant to draw ironic contrast to the ubiquity of the entity in question. This is how I beleive that phrase would likely be interpreted.
Though I imagine someone could take your slant as well.
The only thing I am panicking over is will we be able to get the US administration to give a shit about the environment. We have seen enough evidence to the contrary that I believe this to be sufficient reasoning for a *panic*.
Do they *not* have separate programs at the schools you are familiar with? I went through a "Computer Science and Mathematics" functional degree (which was in the *Math* department). The school, however, (and it was a lowly state school), had another department, Computer Information Systems. This was software engineering with a management bent. I would find it odd if my alma matter was that progressive.
Either you're wrong about Accenture, or I'm more pathetic than I thought. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that the programmers they have are substandard. However, I had graduated with a computer science degree, and even had some experience with some database work at the university I had attended while obtaining my undergrad when I applied at accenture. It came down to me and one other fellow, and they went with the other fellow because he "had more experience". I understand that this is a somewhat "canned response", but I had felt that the interview went rather well on my end (though I walked away feeling they were a very unprofessional firm). Now, I may not have had as rigorous of a curiculum as I should have had, yet I was hardly "off the street." In the end, I am glad that I didn't get the job at accenture because I don't think it would have lasted that long--perhaps they sniffed out that I would become malcontent quite early in the job. At any rate, my denial allowed me the time to work on my Master's in Mathematics.
ahem...
NO matter how much we would like to think to the contrary (or even if it is assumed when some of us write our resumes) knowing how to do something is *not* the same as being able to look it up on the internet. We are damn spoiled.
And I thought he was making reference to transparent as in: "Free from pretense or deceit"...or "open to scrutiny". Of course, translucent has this meaning as well.
This is perhaps the best argument for getting your undergraduate at a *small* school. You don't have to buy into the prestige game to get a decent education. Of course, graduate school is an entirely different situation.
The correct city would be Columbia. This error is simply shameful.
Furthermore, I find this "best" list to be a bit disingenous as I am certain that not every university in the nation was considered.
There are many kinds of shapes that are possible, some "space filling" and some not. (I am sure there is a more correct technical term from topology to describe "space filling".). It's simpler than you think. The term you want (if I understand you correctly) is dense. Though there is no measure of how dense a set is, merely if it is dense or not.
Thanks for the reference, I'll check it out.
Exactly. I also find it amusing when I hear figures like this one: albums are listened to (on average) 7 times. Seven times! Any decent album should stick with you for life.
I always thought that that arguments (about only wanting a few tracks) was a very weak one. I do however, like p2p (with the help of reviews & fan sites and such) to find out who to check out next. I'm currently grooving to Cibelle, TV on the Radio, and 8 bit Rockers now, and where the hell else would I been able to hear them?
BTW: TV on the Radio is *definately* a Band to Watch (tm). First secondhand vinyl/obscure/underground record store I can find them in will definately be frequented by me from then on out. Unfortunately, I'm in the middle of nowhere right now, and don't get to hit the good stores very often.
Yeah, let's just ask Alan Sokal about that.
Umm.... how about most of them? Or better yet, maybe their desktops workstations out-perform their server. There are a variety of different office environments, with varying levels of technical support.
That said, I still think this notebook would be overkill for less tech-savy environments. Note: We have a rather low-end iSeries, so I recognize my shot was rather cheap.
Quoting someone as stating that their problem started with an obsession with pornography is equally fallacious--why should we trust their self diagnosis? Should we not recognize this simply as when the individual first became aware of their problem? If we take into account the subconscious, the reasoning should become immediately clear.
This, of course, does nothing to counter this gist of your arugment... it was only your method with which I objected.
I'm sorry, but you have it exactly backwards.
I couldn't remember whom that quote was from. Thanks for reminding me.
This statement is just plain ridiculous. If someone makes such a mistake with two homophonous words, it doesn't indicate that they don't know the difference between them. It only indicates that they were not careful with their spelling. It's a mistake I occasionally make myself, but I guarantee I know the difference. It pisses me off to no end (just now I damn near wrote know end, perhaps because I had just used the word?) when someone assumes otherwise.
This is where I wish to focus my discussion, as I see it primarily where we differ:
Certainly, they recognize each other as "doing" mathematics. Just as we might recognize another species or such as "doing" mathematics even if it does appear radically different from ours. I appologize if you found my use of the word "politics" inflammatory, perhaps I was simply using it in looser manner than you might expect, I also don't wish to single out mathematics in this charge--I believe much of what we hold as acceptable means for establishing "truth" is indeed "politically" motivated. Or to put it another way, is ultimately determined through appeals to power. Certainly we cannot appeal to reason in establishing what reason is, as it is not yet properly established (or would you say we can as this argument itself is based on reason--eh? You see the difficulty? How do we escape what we've already assumed?). Now, you would be right to say that I'm using an exlcuded middle within this argument (in a rather fallacious way). I would like to hear any ideas from you regarding how we might go about establishing rules of inference (not that if you failed it would prove my point). I am genuinely interested.I would go even further to say that they idea itself that we can infer anything through any rules (or at least, assuredly infer) is itself a politcally motivated idea. I don't buy that we have such a gurantee, or that another "intelligent" species would perceive things in the same manner that we do.
This is the social construct that is mathematics. That said, I do not believe that thinking this way about mathematics diminishes mathematics in any way, nor is it my intention to use this push some other agenda. Mathematics is a usefull tool, one that we have created. I only think it imperative to recognize how we intimately relate to this tool.
Or a different philosophy for what is a sound, provable result. I think there is more politics in mathematics than you'd wish to admit.
Personally, I was rather surprised at the book review myself. I have found, however, many fine folk here on slashdot who appear to have a solid theoretical background in mathematics, perhaps they are hiding out on this one.
I find this is an odd thing for a self-styled mathematician to say. First, I would not label axioms as "truths" but rather as "putative truths". That is their purpose (to be putative). They are styled from not only as "seeming to be true" or appealing to intuition, but also in their ability to form a basis of thought, their simplicity, a small number is required for important results (as in defining a system), and their seeming irreducibility. Axioms are usually formed "post hoc", with an idea of the desired results in mind. Don't you find it disconcerting that in Topology the definition for an open set in a metric is a union of open balls, but an open set in a topologcial system is definied simply as that which exists in the topology? It's a function of how strong of results you have, and later developments are "force fit" into prior studies. Much like topological systems are "force fit" into Metric systems by how they are to be constructed, thus claiming itself an abstraction of the latter.
Furthermore, you claim that any results that contradict the "fundamental" axioms, is not properly called mathematics? You are aware of the results of Godel and his Incompleteness Theorem? It's more than the latest rave, it has results that bear directly on what you are oh-so-devoutly avering. In this light, what is mathematics, when it is either incomplete or contradictory? And quite often it is contradictory? Which set of axioms is the more fundamental one you wish to choose? And how do you choose it? These are problematic questions, with unforthcoming answers. Modern mathematics is rattled as it has been faced with it's own, ultimate, incompetence. It describes nothing but itself.
Disregarding your mixed metaphor "spelling out a larger picture", this doesn't make much sense to me. I guess I don't understand how you are differentiating bogus mathematics and true mathematics.
On what fundamental level? What is a law? How is one to determine what is a law? And what is derived from a law? Or what is contradictory to a law? I do agree that the grandparent poster did mix things up when he contrasted mathematics to physics et al.
Actually, they may or may not actually do this. This was simply a suggestion put forward by HP. They're not allowed to tell us what they'll actually end up doing.
That said, that doesn't mean that unexpected uses of these services won't develop. I just don't see it as a dating tool (which seems to be the slant on this).
Aha! But we can fight to make someone percieve that a claimed right is an inalienable right. When you get down to it, what *is* an inalienable right beside a matter of perspective?
In this light, an "inalienable right" is an oxymoron as anyone can certainly "alienate" it through a different world-view.