[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, M. David Peterson wrote:
> I think I have reached a point in my career in which I have decided that
> if things have become so complex that most dictionaries, including geek
> dictionaries, have yet to catch up with the words and phrases being
> used... I'm either simply too damn stupid to get it, or things have just
> got to damn complex, and they dont need to be.
>
> I'm voting for a little of both myself, but none the less I will throw
> this question into the mix just for the hell of it:
>
> What on earth did you just say? I'll accept the fact that I'm simply
> too dumb to understand, if you'll accept the fact that what you just
> said "dontmakanosense".
>
> Oh well, I'll stick to writing code.... its more fun... I think...
Len tends to the poetic. Sometimes at the cost of comprehension by his readers.
I think he is saying that real world data is fuzzy in meaning, but that in
taking actions (such as executing a program) based on it we objectify it
with specific meaning and interpretation.
He is also saying that a good deal of things treated as objective fact by
people are actually majority subjective opinion and implying that business
meetings are painful examples of this.
- Jerry
On 3/9/06, Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com> wrote:
>
> They take the names in the author slots seriously.
> Think of it as the high side of the long tail and
> look up "vanara".
>
> As I said, after a month of digging through papers
> on pragmatics and business intelligence, this is the
> subjective approach: reality is what you say it is
> if enough people agree. Subjective systems provide
> for multiple points of view over the same information.
> Objective systems provide for information plus operations
> so really, one point of view. As you know, a
> subjective system is Heisenbergian: information is
> in superposition until measured and measurement is
> a means of objectification. So what you see is data
> moved in superposition (in a range from delimited
> to XML, for example), received, then objectified.
>
> Information is transported subjective;y (least
> power, least authority) and objectified for
> local processing. As a writer on Grice's Maxims
> titled his article: "Do The Right Thing".
>
> Gotta go to a meeting now and try with all my
> might to remain objective. ;-)
>
> len
>
>
> From: Richard Salz [mailto:rsalz@us.ibm.com]
>
> I find it hard to believe that folks take this serious. Perhaps they can
> also resolve the which editor is best, now that we've been told how to
> choose a programing language. Perhaps we'll see a PhD thesis on this
> soon.
>
> The rule, principal, commandment, whatever, is really very simple: choose
> the right one.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
--
<M:D/>
M. David Peterson
http://www.xsltblog.com/
--
Jerry
If you can't handle reality, it *will* handle you.
|
