[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Please don't apologize -- I am about the last person on this planet who could suggest that someone was wrong for bringing art and science (in this case computer science) together in the same conversation thread. there is VERY little difference between the two in my opinion, as both involve creation and discovery (or discovery of creation, or discovery and creations, or... see what I mean :)
I find your writings absolutely fascinating, and when Mike Champion and others get involved, the popcorn it-is-a-poppin -- you couldn't get the same value of both education and entertainment for the price of a movie ticket and concessions @ the local Regals chain.
I found Richard Salz point spot on, but more from a general standpoint, as I didn really read through the whole thread to see the specifics. After reading your next post to the thread I then decided that there are those folks in whom simply live and understand things at a higher plane, as there are things that I will never be able to understand anywhere close to the level that many of you folks do. And thats okay... we all don't have to be super human smart -- and it seems that in the end it all comes back to the same thing --
How can we use our knowledge in life to get laid! :D
Cheers, Amen, and all the rest to that! :D
On 3/9/06, Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com> wrote:
Actually, in one context what I said was precise
(except the bit about vanaras. That's cultural
indirection).
The Rule of Least Power is defended by the context
being the web, the whole web, and nothing but the web.
It isn't mysterious. It is simply a weak rule
somewhat as if one tried to apply the rules for
building roads to building printed circuits. They
are generally lines, generally go places, and things
generally travel on them, but that is about as much
as you get from the abstraction. Note that the TAG
didn't say to apply it that deeply, thus the requests
from a lot of people to get some kind of bounding
or contexts of application once it quit being a
principle and became a rule. Those get pushed out
into the WebAsAmplifier and when unfiltered, bad
assumptions are made, marketing gets involved,
cathedrals are built and at the end of it, it's
just Scientology. Send me $$$.
The bits from cybernetics are actually very
useful to know if you have to do business systems
work doing data mining, warehousing, etc. A first
order system is objective. Road and circuits.
A second order system is subjective
(observer selects what to watch and
the measures to use so self-limits the understanding:
that is the mote in the eye of science). If all
I am measuring is lineness, placeness, thingness
and travelness, I might conclude that I can build
printed circuits with asphalt or that roads would
last longer if paved with gold.
As to the poetry, sorry about that. Yesterday I
found out students from the department where I was
trained in theatre were burning down churches
last month. I'm wondering if it was the training
or the time because I'd be more inclined to burn
down the school. :-)
len
From: Benjamin Franz [mailto:snowhare@nihongo.org]
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.
--
<M:D/>
M. David Peterson
http://www.xsltblog.com/
|
