In article <47631fe8@news.povray.org>, nos### [at] nospamcom says...
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:38:37 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
> > In article <475f8973$1@news.povray.org>, nos### [at] nospamcom says...
> >> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:20:00 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> >> 
> >> > So, the questions really are: 1. Does it have to be human readable?
> >> 
> >> That would be a "watch" by definition.  The usage that I have seen thi
s
> >> is in the context of the book "The Invisible Watchmaker", and the
> >> premise (at least from the debates I've had with people who have read
> >> it; I have not) seems to be flawed as the idea is that a watch has to
> >> imply a watchmaker because a watch must be made by a maker.  Therefore
,
> >> there must be a watchmaker or there'd be no watch.
> >> 
> > Actually, it just implies that a maker can sometimes come up with thing
s
> > that "personally" benefit him/her/it-self, which wouldn't otherwise
> > result. The reason I said "human readable" is precisely because of that
> > basic conceit, that because its useful to them in some fashion, and its
> > too complicated for them to bother (not attempt, just bother) to figure
> > out, this implies that a maker had to do it. My point was that you coul
d
> > decide that some flower, which had the odd tendency of gripping your
> > wrist, would look nice to wear, and never realize that it was so synced
> > to the 24 hour cycle of the planet that it also did something that made
> > it 100% like a watch. Or maybe there could be a leech that when through
> > clear 24 hour cycles, which only appear in its *chemistry*, in which
> > case you would still be wearing a good watch, you just wouldn't be able
> > to read it at all. And so on. The initial presumption is that you would
> > *recognize* it as a watch in the first place. I.e., that it would
> > display the information in a way that the moron looking for a watch
> > would "recognize" as watch like.
> 
> My understanding of the book is that it is dealing specifically with a 
> mechanical or electronic watch, not with something watch-like or that 
> keeps time....
> 
True. But that just discredits the point they try to make anyway, since 
they imply that something that "looks" designed had to have a designer, 
and everything *looks* designed to them, even the stuff that isn't. So, 
its hardly acceptable, as a defense of there view, to suggest that, 
"Well, ok, you could evolve something that 'acted' like a watch, but I 
meant an actual watch!". Its one of those goal post moving, deny your 
own supposed point, hand wave, then insist you where victorious anyway, 
type defenses you get from their side. One is almost amazed that they 
don't try to pull something truly crazy, and argue about the Pluto, then 
insists later that they where actually talking about a tuna fish 
sandwich, and you just somehow failed to see the obvious connection. lol

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message