Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 00:35:14 -0800 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>, Harry Tabak <htabak@quadtelecom.com>, dever@getaclue.net, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter. Message-ID: <200212310835.gBV8ZJ179351@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> Because the assumptions you call "systems engineering" and "emergent >> >> behaviors" may not apply when dealing with a large space of humanity. >> > >> > Sure they do. >> >> LOL. You can't prove that assertion, you don't have the means. > > You mean, of course, that I can't prove it to you, due to your > willful ignorance of the calculus necessary to the proof. 8-). That and mostly because -all- people do not have predicatve behavior sets. Some do, but not all. >> > Human behaviour, at least relative to groups, is both quantifiable >> > and predictable. >> >> I disagree, and here we meet the classic Lambert/Hayes impasse. >> Welcome back! > > These mailing lists are completely predictable Looking at a sample of the population of the lists, I'd say this is more true than it is for some equal random sampling of humans. > because the FreeBSD > project itself is completely predictable, as a variation of the > non-linear Richardson equation describing a mutual security game > called "GloboCop". And heeere we go again. >> >> Your analogy is arbitrary. People -do- deny the existence of both >> >> those forces. Whether they are "right" or not depends on the circle >> >> of people they are addressing. I certainly wouldn't address a PhD in >> >> physics with this denial, I might address a group of new age >> >> "spiritual" people that way. >> > >> > Yet a falling anvil from the top of the building will not respect >> > their beliefs. >> >> You'd be surprised. I've seen instances with my own eyes where the >> laws of physics haven't held. I know I take great risk saying this, >> because this is akin to telling a Christian that Jesus was just >> another man...but that's my experience. > > Feel free to demonstrate them repeatably under laboratory > conditions... It's the laboratory conditions themselves which prevent the display of such things. > you will win the acceptance of all true scientists. I don't want their acceptance. I want people to be sane, for some arbitrary definition of sanity that I see but cannot elucidate. So it's not about what I want. ;) >> > Beliefs that contradict reality are unconvincing to reality >> >> Even the belief that there is one and only one objective reality which >> everyone shares whether they want to or not? > > Does that one contradict reality? Define "reality"? >> > You can't argue with the laws of physics (well, you can... but you >> > will always lose; gotta love the laws of physics...). >> >> When you can explain the magic of David Copperfield or David Blane, >> I'll listen to this argument. > > They are perceptual tricks. Almost all visual tricks are based > on the fundamental wiring of human beings. > If you want me to come up with a way to duplicate a particular > trick, then provide a reference for the trick, so that I can > personally observe its operation. Blane levitates on TV. That's about the best I can do, there are a lot of recorded magic tricks on video and I'm sure these people perform somewhere. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Politically Correct - From "Poly" meaning "many", "Ticks" meaning "blood sucking leeches", "Core" meaning "the center of, and "Rectum" meaning "what you release crap out of". YOU figure it out. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200212310835.gBV8ZJ179351>