|
So, you won't be watching the Italians then?
|
|
|
|
|
What we got here is a failure to communicate
|
|
|
|
|
What!? And waste all those acting lessons in the penalty box?
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Here is video[^] from the previous World Cup in South africa. If you had your way we couldn't get this like that... 
|
|
|
|
|
 Thanks. Good clip.
What we got here is a failure to communicate
|
|
|
|
|
That's funny, I want to see theatrics without football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alchemy API[^] - Natural Language Processing
Freebase[^] - A community-curated database of well-known people, places, and things
dbpedia[^] - DBpedia is a crowd-sourced community effort to extract structured information from Wikipedia and make this information available on the Web.
Object Oriented Ontology[^] - object-oriented ontology opposes the anthropocentrism of Immanuel Kant's Copernican Revolution, whereby objects are said to conform to the mind of the subject and, in turn, become products of human cognition.
Have fun!
(Can you guess what my next article is going to be about?)
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Spiders?
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Spiders?
Ugh. I have arachnophobia. And watching the movie didn't cure me.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I watched some of the movie.
Just not very much. :brrrrr:
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Can you guess what my next article is going to be about?
I would have guessed if I had any clue what you have done thus far is. 
After these many years, what gets you going? I love my job but I get distracted easily. I try a lot to do some personal thing and learn new technologies but no, never happens.
I started Android development worked my way through and wrote tiny applications to understand how things are done there and then, gone. Next started WPF, wrote an in-house tool at office (generous great guy, I am) and then, nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
d@nish wrote: I would have guessed if I had any clue what you have done thus far is.
Dang, don't people looks at sigs anymore? 
d@nish wrote: After these many years, what gets you going?
I have gotten totally excited about this Higher Order Programming Environment I've been putting together. I've cranked out 3 articles on it here on CP, and there's a github repository[^] with some links to short (and bad, haha) videos (hmm, I'm missing links to two, I'll update the github home page shortly.)
d@nish wrote: I started Android development
I'd like to do that, but I also figure, it might be more cost effective if I hired someone, but then again, it's only cost effective if I've got the money, haha!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Famous Philosopher facial reconstruction? (Say that 3 times real fast)
If first you don't succeed, hide all evidence you ever tried!
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Can you guess what my next article is going to be about?
Whatever it is, please, please, please don't use constructs like this:
Quote: In contrast to Kant's view, object-oriented philosophers maintain that objects ... are not ontologically exhausted by their relations with humans or other objects.
Since 'ontological' means "relating to or based upon being or existence", it makes no sense. Some Wikipedia writers are far too full of themselves...
PS - your link[^] is broken.
modified 22-Jun-14 14:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: Since 'ontological' means "relating to or based upon being or existence", it makes no sense.
I noticed that. In fact, I'm struggling with the correct usage of the word myself for exactly that reason -- it's such a higher order concept, a phrase like "The ontology of meaning" seems both redundant and wrong at the same time.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I strongly recommend ditching the word entirely. The sentence I quoted would read much better as:
"In contrast to Kant's view, object-oriented philosophers maintain that the reality of objects observed in our physical world ... does not depend on their relations with humans or other objects."
Even that is not easy to grok, but at least the common man might have a chance of understanding the outlook. And I might bold 'the reality', because that is the important point.
|
|
|
|
|
PS - I believe the correct usage in your case would be, "The meaning, when viewed ontologically, is ..." (if that is the correct spelling for the obfuscatory word).
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Language Processing[^] 
Once you lose your pride the rest is easy.
I would agree with you but then we both would be wrong.
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am.
JimmyRopes
|
|
|
|
|
|
One week and 23.5 hours (to be exact) left until I get to join the world's biggest boy scout group, also reffered to as the Swiss army. Spent the last days walking in my boots, resulting in a burstened blister at my right heel. But I'm getting used to it, and not really givin' a f@ck about it. No chance of getting anything done these days, just playing couch potato and getting a packet for a friend ready.
The console is a black place
|
|
|
|
|
Marco Bertschi wrote: walking in my boots
Next ask questions in CP. Me for instance - as a veteran soldier - can tell you that driving over it with your car do the exact same effect - soft boots - without any leg problems... 
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
