 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] tag povrayorg> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
