Le 2012-01-10 22:36, Patrick Elliott a écrit :
> On 1/10/2012 7:02 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>> I also gather that "Jesus" was a fairly common name too. Like, if I sat
>>> down today and wrote a book about "John Smith", in 2,000 years' time
>>> historians are going to have one *hell* of a time figuring out whether I
>>> based it on a real person or not...
>>>
>>
>> I read somewhere (assign a random value of factuality to that statement)
>> that Jesus (or Yeshua) may have been a title or nickname, rather than
>> his real name.
>>
>>
> Doubt it. While Jewish names generally had meanings, they where not used
> as titles. Given the time period it would be like, as Invisible said,
> titling someone "John", and expecting anyone to not go, "Oh, I know him,
> doesn't he make sandles two streets down that way?" His *title* was
> Christ, or Messiah. Or at least, that is what they tacked on to what
> ever imaginary person, or poor corpse, had the luck of "founding" the
> things. lol

He was a carpenter, not a shoemaker... ;)

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

>> Doubt it. While Jewish names generally had meanings, they where not used
>> as titles. Given the time period it would be like, as Invisible said,
>> titling someone "John", and expecting anyone to not go, "Oh, I know him,
>> doesn't he make sandles two streets down that way?" His *title* was
>> Christ, or Messiah. Or at least, that is what they tacked on to what
>> ever imaginary person, or poor corpse, had the luck of "founding" the
>> things. lol
>
> He was a carpenter, not a shoemaker... ;)

Wikipedia claims that "carpenter" is not a good translation. More like 
"odd job man".

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-01-10 22:33, Patrick Elliott a écrit :
> On 1/10/2012 3:59 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> From where did he came, nothing is sure. Only the last 3 years of his
>> life were dedicated to propaganda and sedition. It is also well-known
>> that he frequented a whore (Marie Madeleine)... put that on the prudish
>> and puritan Church. Coherency and consistency never make it inside dogma.
>>
> Actually, the whore thing is in dispute. As I said in another post, Mary
> was such a common name at the time that it was used as a derogatory
> statement when encountering Jewish women. If you go back to some of the
> earliest translations, its fairly clear that there where in fact at
> least "two" such Marys, one of them a follower, and the other some
> random street whore, who decided to wash his feet. Even the chronology
> makes no sense, if taken into account, with her being, seemingly
> "unknown", wandering in off the street, and becoming so impressed she
> had to wash his feet, **after** earlier parts of the same text, where
> she is already mentioned as traveling with him (this makes no logical
> sense, unless you get a later "edited" version, like the KJV, which
> attempts, badly, to "fix" these little errors).
>
> The "Whore and follower, both" bit was created much later, as a means of
> showing, even as they ignored it themselves, how much "purer" he was
> than the rest of us (and, at least initially, to show how we needed to
> be nice, even to bad people). By the time the puritans came along, it
> was common to confuse them as the same person. The puritans themselves
> are notable for taking the already distorted meaning of, "taking the
> lords name in vein", and making it into cursing and using words that
> involved bodily functions. The original meaning, BTW, was the use of
> imprecatory prayer, to ask god to give them things, or curse others.
> Hardly a surprise that "modern" Christians use prayer for almost bloody
> nothing else. lol

You mean like asking to win a football game?

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 09/01/2012 03:31 PM, Invisible wrote:

> Interestingly, according to Wikipedia (which is inerrant),

To quote Wikipedia,

"The Book of Genesis (from the Latin Vulgate, is about dinosaurs who 
shoot cream chesse out of their butts, meaning Genesis is mainly about 
perverted dinosaurs Hebrew: בְּרֵאשִׁית‎, Bereʾšyt, "In [the]
beginning"), is 
the first book of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament.[1]"

I was literally reading about the various books of the Bible, and came 
across this. Very random... I've never actually seen that before. (Then 
again, I usually don't read popular pages.)

Post a reply to this message

On 1/11/2012 6:23 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Doubt it. While Jewish names generally had meanings, they where not used
>>> as titles. Given the time period it would be like, as Invisible said,
>>> titling someone "John", and expecting anyone to not go, "Oh, I know him,
>>> doesn't he make sandles two streets down that way?" His *title* was
>>> Christ, or Messiah. Or at least, that is what they tacked on to what
>>> ever imaginary person, or poor corpse, had the luck of "founding" the
>>> things. lol
>>
>> He was a carpenter, not a shoemaker... ;)
>
> Wikipedia claims that "carpenter" is not a good translation. More like
> "odd job man".
Great a tinker. lol Oh my, you mean he was actually a gnome? Oh, wait, 
wrong fictional mythology...

Post a reply to this message

On 1/11/2012 6:26 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2012-01-10 22:33, Patrick Elliott a écrit :
>> On 1/10/2012 3:59 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>> From where did he came, nothing is sure. Only the last 3 years of his
>>> life were dedicated to propaganda and sedition. It is also well-known
>>> that he frequented a whore (Marie Madeleine)... put that on the prudish
>>> and puritan Church. Coherency and consistency never make it inside
>>> dogma.
>>>
>> Actually, the whore thing is in dispute. As I said in another post, Mary
>> was such a common name at the time that it was used as a derogatory
>> statement when encountering Jewish women. If you go back to some of the
>> earliest translations, its fairly clear that there where in fact at
>> least "two" such Marys, one of them a follower, and the other some
>> random street whore, who decided to wash his feet. Even the chronology
>> makes no sense, if taken into account, with her being, seemingly
>> "unknown", wandering in off the street, and becoming so impressed she
>> had to wash his feet, **after** earlier parts of the same text, where
>> she is already mentioned as traveling with him (this makes no logical
>> sense, unless you get a later "edited" version, like the KJV, which
>> attempts, badly, to "fix" these little errors).
>>
>> The "Whore and follower, both" bit was created much later, as a means of
>> showing, even as they ignored it themselves, how much "purer" he was
>> than the rest of us (and, at least initially, to show how we needed to
>> be nice, even to bad people). By the time the puritans came along, it
>> was common to confuse them as the same person. The puritans themselves
>> are notable for taking the already distorted meaning of, "taking the
>> lords name in vein", and making it into cursing and using words that
>> involved bodily functions. The original meaning, BTW, was the use of
>> imprecatory prayer, to ask god to give them things, or curse others.
>> Hardly a surprise that "modern" Christians use prayer for almost bloody
>> nothing else. lol
>
> You mean like asking to win a football game?
>
Stupidest thing about it, when you get right down to it, is that most of 
them pray for something like, "We need to find a cheap baby bed, please 
god!", then go around physically from second hand store to second hand 
store, looking for one, then praise god for having magically placed one 
there. Want to impress me, ask him for a $20 baby bed, then only visit 
some high end store, that sells them with gold leaf applied, and "succeed".

The ones that pray, instead of going to a doctor, especially when their 
kid is sick.. are in my opinion, depraved, insane, **and** stupid. 
Sadly, while the argument has been made that someone intentionally 
killing their kid with a gun would be "immediately" assumed, even by 
other believers, to be insane, not, "actually hearing god", killing them 
"unintentionally", by believing completely insane things, and acting on 
them, via neglect and denial, will get the same nutcase remanded to 
someone's custody, put on probation, and left with how ever many other 
kids they have popped out, to do it all over again.

I am not sure why the hell this is, but apparently it has something to 
do with, "Not forcing people to abandon their faith, and respecting that 
they have a strong conviction about it.", or something. Which, again, 
makes no damn sense, if they where "insane" when using a shotgun, but 
"sane" when using prayer, and forced fasting, to try to cure frakking 
pneumonia. Something is badly wrong with **everyone's** priorities when 
this is considered an "important difference" imho.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-01-11 10:07, Invisible a écrit :
> On 09/01/2012 03:31 PM, Invisible wrote:
>
>> Interestingly, according to Wikipedia (which is inerrant),
>
> To quote Wikipedia,
>
> "The Book of Genesis (from the Latin Vulgate, is about dinosaurs who
> shoot cream chesse out of their butts, meaning Genesis is mainly about
> perverted dinosaurs Hebrew: בְּרֵאשִׁית‎, Bereʾšyt, "In [the]
beginning"), is
> the first book of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament.[1]"
>
> I was literally reading about the various books of the Bible, and came
> across this. Very random... I've never actually seen that before. (Then
> again, I usually don't read popular pages.)

This type of "Ha-ha! I made a funny edit in a Wikipedia page" usually 
get reverted pretty quick, especially on popular pages.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

>> I was literally reading about the various books of the Bible, and came
>> across this. Very random... I've never actually seen that before. (Then
>> again, I usually don't read popular pages.)
>
> This type of "Ha-ha! I made a funny edit in a Wikipedia page" usually
> get reverted pretty quick, especially on popular pages.

Took approximately 10 minutes, in fact. Which makes it all the more 
surprising that I happened to hit the page within that 10-minute window.

Of course, if instead of inserting something obviously bogus, the person 
had made several small factual edits which look superficially plausible, 
you could slowly pollute large sections of Wikipedia with false data and 
nobody would notice for a very long time.

This is why Wikipedia will /never/ be inerrant. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Took approximately 10 minutes, in fact. Which makes it all the more
> surprising that I happened to hit the page within that 10-minute window.

It happens. I once tried to read the article on the first Halo game, and one
section, quite a large paragraph, consisted entirely of the phrase 'halo is gay'
in block capitals over and over again. Several minutes later, back to normal.

> Of course, if instead of inserting something obviously bogus, the person
> had made several small factual edits which look superficially plausible,
> you could slowly pollute large sections of Wikipedia with false data and
> nobody would notice for a very long time.

Except that there's a large army of editors who get notified of every edit, and
likely catch even subtle changes relatively quickly.

Still funny when you happen to catch some vandalism in the act tho :)

And then there's always the anti-Wikipedia:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Bill

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> And then there's always the anti-Wikipedia:
> http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

  If you want your IQ to drop, try conservapedia.org.

  Their slogan is an exquisite oxymoron: "Conservapedia, the trustworthy
encyclopedia." (In reality, if conservapedia claims something it's probably
wrong.)

  The difference between conservapedia and sites like uncyclopedia is that
the former is seriously made, and the owner honestly believes the crap he
writes.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Took approximately 10 minutes, in fact. Which makes it all the more
>> surprising that I happened to hit the page within that 10-minute window.
>
> It happens. I once tried to read the article on the first Halo game, and one
> section, quite a large paragraph, consisted entirely of the phrase 'halo is gay'
> in block capitals over and over again. Several minutes later, back to normal.

Subtle. Real subtle.

Of course, one does not have to *utter* the words "Halo is gay". This 
fact is self-evident, uttered or not. ;-)

>> Of course, if instead of inserting something obviously bogus, the person
>> had made several small factual edits which look superficially plausible,
>> you could slowly pollute large sections of Wikipedia with false data and
>> nobody would notice for a very long time.
>
> Except that there's a large army of editors who get notified of every edit, and
> likely catch even subtle changes relatively quickly.

You would have to be careful to not just indiscriminately edit dozens of 
unrelated articles changing dates and so forth. That would be a tad 
obvious. But if your edits were of low frequency, it's unlikely that 
anybody would bother to look up every single fact you changed to make 
sure it was correct.

OTOH, I gather that if you try to make /genuine/ corrections, your edits 
get automatically reverted, so... :-P

> Still funny when you happen to catch some vandalism in the act tho :)

Yeah, well... not so much.

> And then there's always the anti-Wikipedia:
> http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

My brain! Urrrgh!! >_<

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Of course, one does not have to *utter* the words "Halo is gay". This
> fact is self-evident, uttered or not. ;-)

Oi, I quite enjoyed it :) Unless you meant that it has a lot of homoerotic
content. Or, archaically, that it's a really happy carefree game.

> My brain! Urrrgh!! >_<

Quite. I've not been brave enough to look at Warp's link yet, I might turn big
and green and smash things.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/01/2012 04:26 PM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Of course, one does not have to *utter* the words "Halo is gay". This
>> fact is self-evident, uttered or not. ;-)
>
> Oi, I quite enjoyed it :) Unless you meant that it has a lot of homoerotic
> content. Or, archaically, that it's a really happy carefree game.

The former is debatable, the latter is undeniably false. ;-)

>> My brain! Urrrgh!!>_<
>
> Quite. I've not been brave enough to look at Warp's link yet, I might turn big
> and green and smash things.

I tried. I got a domain name holding page.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   If you want your IQ to drop, try conservapedia.org.

  It should have been conservapedia.com.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:54:23 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> And then there's always the anti-Wikipedia:
>> http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
> 
>   If you want your IQ to drop, try conservapedia.org.
> 
>   Their slogan is an exquisite oxymoron: "Conservapedia, the trustworthy
> encyclopedia." (In reality, if conservapedia claims something it's
> probably wrong.)

Which, logically, means it can be trusted.  To be wrong, that is. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >   If you want your IQ to drop, try conservapedia.org.

Arg. Just looked at the main page. I can't believe I've sullied my browser
history with it.

Post a reply to this message

>>    Their slogan is an exquisite oxymoron: "Conservapedia, the trustworthy
>> encyclopedia." (In reality, if conservapedia claims something it's
>> probably wrong.)
>
> Which, logically, means it can be trusted.  To be wrong, that is. :)

"I'm dishonest. And you can always trust a dishonest man to be 
dishonest. Honestly, it's the honest men you want to worry about, 
because you just never know when they're going to do something really... 
really... stupid."

Name it.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:52:11 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>>    Their slogan is an exquisite oxymoron: "Conservapedia, the
>>>    trustworthy
>>> encyclopedia." (In reality, if conservapedia claims something it's
>>> probably wrong.)
>>
>> Which, logically, means it can be trusted.  To be wrong, that is. :)
> 
> "I'm dishonest. And you can always trust a dishonest man to be
> dishonest. Honestly, it's the honest men you want to worry about,
> because you just never know when they're going to do something really...
> really... stupid."
> 
> Name it.

Easy, because we just watched it.  Captain Jack Sparrow, Pirates of the 
Caribbean.

A former friend of mine once said something similar - he asked me if I 
trusted him, and I said yes, and he said "you shouldn't."

He was right (hence "former friend").

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12/01/2012 07:00 PM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:
>> Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:
>>>    If you want your IQ to drop, try conservapedia.org.
>
> Arg. Just looked at the main page. I can't believe I've sullied my browser
> history with it.

Oh come on, it can't be that bad. :-P



...no, wait. It is. >_<

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > "I'm dishonest. And you can always trust a dishonest man to be
> > dishonest. Honestly, it's the honest men you want to worry about,
> > because you just never know when they're going to do something really...
> > really... stupid."
> > 
> > Name it.

> Easy, because we just watched it.  Captain Jack Sparrow, Pirates of the 
> Caribbean.

  The problem with quotes in the modern world is that it's trivial to write
them in google and get the source in a few seconds. There's no challenge
anymore.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > > "I'm dishonest. And you can always trust a dishonest man to be
> > > dishonest. Honestly, it's the honest men you want to worry about,
> > > because you just never know when they're going to do something really...
> > > really... stupid."
> > > 
> > > Name it.

> > Easy, because we just watched it.  Captain Jack Sparrow, Pirates of the 
> > Caribbean.

>   The problem with quotes in the modern world is that it's trivial to write
> them in google and get the source in a few seconds. There's no challenge
> anymore.

  Which gives me an idea: What are your favorite quotes? (They don't have to
be film quotes. Anything goes.)

  I'll start with this one (kudos if you know where it's from without using
the internet):

  "The song of the forest is in perfect harmony. If a single note is out
of place, the elves will find its source."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 13/01/2012 6:15 PM, Warp wrote:
>    Which gives me an idea: What are your favorite quotes? (They don't have to
> be film quotes. Anything goes.)

Why this is hell, nor am I out of it.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> Why this is hell, nor am I out of it.

  Ashamed to admit that I have never heard that one. Had to google.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 13/01/2012 7:22 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> Why this is hell, nor am I out of it.
>
>    Ashamed to admit that I have never heard that one. Had to google.
>
There is no need to be ashamed of not knowing a quote by a 16th Century 
English playwright who only wrote six or seven plays.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   Which gives me an idea: What are your favorite quotes? (They don't have to
> be film quotes. Anything goes.)

I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be
fought with sticks and stones.


I didn't know yours, although it sounds like Tolkien.

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be
> fought with sticks and stones.

  I think this is traditionally attributed to Einstein, but I would probably
have to perform some research in order to verify that. (Misattributions
of this type are extremely common.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be
> > fought with sticks and stones.
>
>   I think this is traditionally attributed to Einstein, but I would probably
> have to perform some research in order to verify that. (Misattributions
> of this type are extremely common.)

I've always thought it to be Einstein. I had a moment's doubt before posting,
but Wikipedia at least seems to agree.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:34:24 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > "I'm dishonest. And you can always trust a dishonest man to be
>> > dishonest. Honestly, it's the honest men you want to worry about,
>> > because you just never know when they're going to do something
>> > really... really... stupid."
>> > 
>> > Name it.
> 
>> Easy, because we just watched it.  Captain Jack Sparrow, Pirates of the
>> Caribbean.
> 
>   The problem with quotes in the modern world is that it's trivial to
>   write
> them in google and get the source in a few seconds. There's no challenge
> anymore.

True, though not all quotes have to be googled to be known...I knew that 
one off the top of my head. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:15:32 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   "The song of the forest is in perfect harmony. If a single note is out
> of place, the elves will find its source."

I'd have guessed Tolkien if I hadn't read later messages.

"Insanity is a gradual process.  Don't rush it."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 1/9/2012 9:50, andrel wrote:
> his existence can be used to prove contradictory statements,

That doesn't prevent God's existence. That only makes him illogical. Logic 
is inference, remember.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/12/2012 5:52, Invisible wrote:
> Of course, if instead of inserting something obviously bogus, the person had
> made several small factual edits which look superficially plausible, you

It would take about an hour. You don't think academics do experiments like 
this and publish their results.

> This is why Wikipedia will /never/ be inerrant. ;-)

Of course not. But it appears to have errors at about the same rate as 
normal published paper encyclopedia.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/12/2012 9:45, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Which, logically, means it can be trusted.  To be wrong, that is. :)

That's why I correct people who say Microsoft or Apple can't be trusted. 
They can certainly be trusted to do whatever they can get away with.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/12/2012 8:26, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Or, archaically, that it's a really happy carefree game.

You're thinking Red Vs Blue, which is based on Halo. ;-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:15:32 -0500, Warp wrote:

> >   "The song of the forest is in perfect harmony. If a single note is out
> > of place, the elves will find its source."

> I'd have guessed Tolkien if I hadn't read later messages.

  If a quote mentions elves, it must be Tolkien? Is he the only known author
who has ever written about elves?-)

> "Insanity is a gradual process.  Don't rush it."

  If I had to make a wild guess, I'd say it's by the Joker, but that's the
only fictional character I know of (or remember) who deals with subjects
of insanity... It's probably wrong.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 1/12/2012 9:45, Jim Henderson wrote:
> > Which, logically, means it can be trusted.  To be wrong, that is. :)

> That's why I correct people who say Microsoft or Apple can't be trusted. 
> They can certainly be trusted to do whatever they can get away with.

  I'd say that's rather nitpicky. The colloquial expression "can be
trusted" implies the continuation "to do the right thing" (for their
customers, in this particular case).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 1/14/2012 9:34, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> On 1/12/2012 9:45, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Which, logically, means it can be trusted.  To be wrong, that is. :)
>
>> That's why I correct people who say Microsoft or Apple can't be trusted.
>> They can certainly be trusted to do whatever they can get away with.
>
>    I'd say that's rather nitpicky.

Yes. But it's usually in response to people complaining that Microsoft isn't 
trustworthy because they reliably do selfish things, or something. My point 
is "yes, rely on that rather than complaining of it."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:33:07 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:15:32 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>> >   "The song of the forest is in perfect harmony. If a single note is
>> >   out
>> > of place, the elves will find its source."
> 
>> I'd have guessed Tolkien if I hadn't read later messages.
> 
>   If a quote mentions elves, it must be Tolkien? Is he the only known
>   author
> who has ever written about elves?-)

Of course not, but cognitive processes tend to take shortcuts, and 
association "elves" with "Tolkien" is such a shortcut.

>> "Insanity is a gradual process.  Don't rush it."
> 
>   If I had to make a wild guess, I'd say it's by the Joker, but that's
>   the
> only fictional character I know of (or remember) who deals with subjects
> of insanity... It's probably wrong.

Yep, it is.  Your cognitive shortcut didn't work either, it would seem. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:10:41 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> On 1/12/2012 9:45, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Which, logically, means it can be trusted.  To be wrong, that is. :)
> 
> That's why I correct people who say Microsoft or Apple can't be trusted.
> They can certainly be trusted to do whatever they can get away with.

Absolutely.

I think, though, when people say they can't be trusted, it's a shortcut 
for "they can't be trusted with my information" or something along those 
ways.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   Which gives me an idea: What are your favorite quotes? (They don't have to
> be film quotes. Anything goes.)

  Ok, here's another one:

    As Abraham Lincoln once said, "Journalism is the first rough draft
    of history." Or possibly it was Thomas Edison who said that. I'm
    pretty sure somebody said it, because you often hear journalists
    quote it in an effort to explain how come they get everything wrong.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 13/01/2012 05:34 PM, Warp wrote:

>    The problem with quotes in the modern world is that it's trivial to write
> them in google and get the source in a few seconds. There's no challenge
> anymore.

Interestingly, typing "quod enim mavult homo verum esse id poteous 
credit" yields few if any hits, despite being a very well-known quote.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 14/01/2012 05:34 PM, Warp wrote:

>    I'd say that's rather nitpicky. The colloquial expression "can be
> trusted" implies the continuation "to do the right thing" (for their
> customers, in this particular case).

All those people running MS software are *not* MS customers. They are an 
MS product. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 14/01/2012 05:09 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 1/12/2012 5:52, Invisible wrote:
>> Of course, if instead of inserting something obviously bogus, the
>> person had
>> made several small factual edits which look superficially plausible, you
>
> It would take about an hour. You don't think academics do experiments
> like this and publish their results.

Er, why would academics waste time on something as pointless as Wikipedia?



...oh, wait. I just remembered the experimental study to determine 
whether or not a duck's quack echoes. Damn.

>> This is why Wikipedia will /never/ be inerrant. ;-)
>
> Of course not. But it appears to have errors at about the same rate as
> normal published paper encyclopedia.

Really? So paper encyclopedias are written by people with no domain 
knowledge simply plucking facts out of thin air too?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 15/01/2012 10:46 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 13/01/2012 05:34 PM, Warp wrote:
>
>> The problem with quotes in the modern world is that it's trivial to write
>> them in google and get the source in a few seconds. There's no challenge
>> anymore.
>
> Interestingly, typing "quod enim mavult homo verum esse id poteous
> credit" yields few if any hits, despite being a very well-known quote.
>
Not well known to me. What does it mean?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 1/15/2012 2:51, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> All those people running MS software are *not* MS customers. They are an MS
> product. ;-)

Not precisely. If you bought Windows, you're a customer. If you run Windows, 
you're a potential future customer (Office, upgrades, etc). Unlike broadcast 
television, where there was no rational expectation of actual money coming 
from the viewer in return for the TV shows before they started selling TV 
shows on DVD.

It's just that the number of Windows licenses you personally buy is dwarfed 
by the number that Gateway buys.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/15/2012 2:53, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Er, why would academics waste time on something as pointless as Wikipedia?

Why would academics waste time on determining the accuracy of 
non-peer-reviewed published distribution channels? Really?  You didn't spend 
enough time in academia, I think. :-)

> Really? So paper encyclopedias are written by people with no domain
> knowledge simply plucking facts out of thin air too?

No, but neither are wikipedia articles, it seems.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:54:38 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 15/01/2012 10:46 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> On 13/01/2012 05:34 PM, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with quotes in the modern world is that it's trivial to
>>> write them in google and get the source in a few seconds. There's no
>>> challenge anymore.
>>
>> Interestingly, typing "quod enim mavult homo verum esse id poteous
>> credit" yields few if any hits, despite being a very well-known quote.
>>
> Not well known to me. What does it mean?

Essentially boils down, I think, to "A man prefers what he believes to be 
true".

Google Translate can now handle latin, but "poteous" it doesn't seem to 
know.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Not well known to me. What does it mean?
>
> Essentially boils down, I think, to "A man prefers what he believes to be
> true".

Quite. I believe it was Sir Francis Bacon who wrote that.

(The translation I saw was "for what a man wishes to be true, that he 
more readily believes".)

> Google Translate can now handle latin, but "poteous" it doesn't seem to
> know.

I probably spelt it wrong. (Thinking about it, it might be "potious", 
I'm not sure. Same root as "potestus", I think.)

Post a reply to this message

On 15/01/2012 07:09 PM, Darren New wrote:

> It's just that the number of Windows licenses you personally buy is
> dwarfed by the number that Gateway buys.

I thought it was more that Windows is a product that forces people to 
buy expensive new hardware, which is why the hardware vendors agree to 
supply it. (In other words, Windows is a product for helping hardware 
vendors sell more stuff.)

Post a reply to this message

On 15/01/2012 07:11 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 1/15/2012 2:53, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Er, why would academics waste time on something as pointless as
>> Wikipedia?
>
> Why would academics waste time on determining the accuracy of
> non-peer-reviewed published distribution channels? Really? You didn't
> spend enough time in academia, I think. :-)

I wouldn't know about "academia" - I went to a crap university, 
remember? Recall also that research is the thing I do worst.

That said, I would be surprised if any "serious" research had been done 
in this direction. I know some people somehow manage to get funded to do 
all kinds of ridiculous studies, and somebody might have managed to do a 
joke study on Wikipedia, but I doubt much serious work has been done on 
this.

>> Really? So paper encyclopedias are written by people with no domain
>> knowledge simply plucking facts out of thin air too?
>
> No, but neither are wikipedia articles, it seems.

Are you seriously suggesting that anything on Wikipedia is written by 
somebody who has a clue?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 15/01/2012 07:11 PM, Darren New wrote:
> > On 1/15/2012 2:53, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> >> Really? So paper encyclopedias are written by people with no domain
> >> knowledge simply plucking facts out of thin air too?
> >
> > No, but neither are wikipedia articles, it seems.
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that anything on Wikipedia is written by
> somebody who has a clue?

Suppose you're someone who has a clue.  Then you go to a website where someone
who doesn't has written lots of BS.  What do you do, given you know such a
popular website is a channel for distribution of knowledge?  a) You cross your
fingers and hope for the best of mankind; b) you troll their pages with even
more BS to bring the whole site down as a fraud; c) you actually go and edit the
article with more accurate knowledge and citations.

Post a reply to this message