[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hey cool! That I can understand!
Its also nice to see that there are some folks willing to act as intepreters for those of use who simply don't have the ability to process Len's level of understanding.
Since when did XML-DEV become a community? Last time I was here it was much more Jerry Springerish...
then again, that could have been because I was here, huh....
Hmmm... something to think about, anyway ;)
Thanks again for the breakdown... much appreciated!
On 3/9/06, Benjamin Franz <snowhare@nihongo.org> wrote:
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.
--
<M:D/>
M. David Peterson
http://www.xsltblog.com/
|
