I must admit I'm amazed at what can go wrong. Windows is definitely some kind of CIA-backed crap. It makes no sense that an OS so shit is the market leader without some kind of interference to make this so. No one can explain to me what advantages any systems later than XP possess other than touchscreen in 7. I have to run 64 bit stuff for some calculation stuff I do and some experimental voice to text. Naff all seems compatible with this, even some bits of Office. This said, there wouldn't be much point in me doing stuff on a MAC for eventual use on PCs! My old Ericsson 128 running DOS would still do most of what I need (from 1982). Hey fucking ho!
On 3 Dec, 12:59, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > My advice; buy a Mac! > I have decided since last year that life is far too short to keep > mucking around with PCs. > I'm fed up with compatibility issues; resorting to the screwdriver to > get inside the back of my computers; waiting for the bloody thing to > boot up; and dealing with computer crashes. > I have had a Mac for 10 weeks, and it has never crashed. I have used > to daily. I rarely shut it down, I just close the lid. When I want to > use it I flip the lid, press the space and it is up and ready in under > 3 seconds. > > Chaz > > On Nov 27, 9:44 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The bastard was responsible for 90% of my typos. Now I can hit it as > > often as I like without ending up re-writing. Of course, I had to > > bribe the whole Belgian Government to do this! I still hold out a > > little hope that such 'roadblocks' are what stop was getting a half- > > way decent society. I'm working on a similar fix for politicians and > > religionists. > > > On 27 Nov, 20:14, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I find pressing it works > > > > On Nov 27, 8:00 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Couldn't agree more - these enquiries are Blott on the Landscape. I > > > > have at least triumphed in disabling my capslock key! > > > > > On 26 Nov, 23:21, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Well Kant is vary verbose. I am told he comes across just as bad in > > > > > the original German. If you read his other stuff, he uses plain > > > > > speech. It seems that for generation when philosophers do their opus > > > > > magnum they are compelled to exclude most readers, leaving only the > > > > > anoraks. Hume does exactly the sam job as Kant but without the jargon. > > > > > But even Hume was embarrassed by his early Treatise, and wrote the > > > > > Enquiry which had more content with half the words. > > > > > > It seems to be the month of White-Wash. TOny is getting his dirty > > > > > laundry washed for free, and will come out of this enquiry looking > > > > > whiter than white, whilst the Catholic boy buggering wankers are > > > > > getting their sins removed with a wave of a cheque book. > > > > > > On Nov 25, 3:05 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > We used to be able to teach in a much less bookish way. I don't > > > > > > insist on books much and tend to trash the textbooks. One wants to > > > > > > encourage people to experiment with ideas and at least look at a few > > > > > > examples of thinking beyond common sense. I got hold of a book > > > > > > called > > > > > > 'The Critique of Pure Verbosity' once, but it was a disappointment - > > > > > > needless to say verbose. Facts have ceased to matter. Rape is a > > > > > > classic example. We never discuss the actual offences. Research is > > > > > > conducted by people chosen by people with no clue about what really > > > > > > needs doing and what impartiality is. Much of it is loony. The > > > > > > days > > > > > > of a George turning up in his just made suit and being summed up and > > > > > > given a job are long gone. > > > > > > > On 12 Nov, 11:18, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I'll try to duck the shit storm of names that have hit GMeta's > > > > > > > metaphorical fan as I have not heard of any of them. > > > > > > > The thing that has pissed me off this week is the colonization by > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > Christian right (tautology?) of the word "Enlightenment". This > > > > > > > once > > > > > > > characterized the French Philosophes of the 18thC, in the 1960s, > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > was anti-religion, Deist, Atheist, mechanist, materialist. Since > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > we have political correctness and inclusion. The first step in > > > > > > > colonization and misappropriation of 'enlightenment' was > > > > > > > extending it > > > > > > > to associate it with the 18thC, this was the error of the people > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > gave us the caricature above, then it invited a diaspora: Dutch E, > > > > > > > German E, Scottish E. Now it can happily include Hume and > > > > > > > Liebniz. The > > > > > > > original E now becomes marginalised as French, But wait - we now > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > a Jewish, then a Christian E. After a year of two of describing > > > > > > > as a > > > > > > > Xian E - what is in effect a counter Enlightenment, the > > > > > > > Proffesors of > > > > > > > Divinity now characterize the Calvinistic sermons of the mis > > > > > > > 18thC as > > > > > > > "the greatest influntial achievements of the Enlightenment" - the > > > > > > > colonization of the word is now complete by simply dropping the > > > > > > > adjective Xian. If challenged they can claim they are talking > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > the historical period. What they have really achieved in the > > > > > > > eyes of > > > > > > > the followers is an aggressive take-over with the result that the > > > > > > > Enlightenment is now anti-deist, anti-atheist, anti-materialist, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > against the struggle for liberty in france and america. > > > > > > > Maybe Hitchens and Dawkins are right - maybe we do live in a world > > > > > > > where PC have given religion a free pass- beyond critique or > > > > > > > ridicule? > > > > > > > > I can't disagree with Stanford as they are allowing for a range of > > > > > > > methodologies, but what I would like to rail against is that this > > > > > > > statement is masking something much worse. the permissiveness of > > > > > > > false > > > > > > > agendas, and the obscene unfettered relativism that does not even > > > > > > > allow us to dust the balls of the rapist when what we need to do > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > cut them off. PC has allowed rapists' balls to be reattached. > > > > > > > > On Nov 11, 9:36 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I honestly suspect business schools were more radical 20 years > > > > > > > > ago > > > > > > > > than the whole academy now. We are 100 years after Veblen > > > > > > > > though and > > > > > > > > much more distanced from Nietzsche's 'On Truth and Lies in a > > > > > > > > Moral > > > > > > > > Sense' - which he kept secret. Bachelard is under-used here in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > 'rupture tradition'. I'd guess none of the kind of people you > > > > > > > > describe will have heard of the work of Joseph Sneed, Günther > > > > > > > > Ludwig, > > > > > > > > and Erhard Scheibe; or Bourbaki sets. And also that they ooze > > > > > > > > Kuhn, > > > > > > > > paradigms and root metaphors. And no doubt you'll be up to > > > > > > > > your arse > > > > > > > > in the quadri-hermeneutic. > > > > > > > > The following is filched from 'Philosophy of History' in > > > > > > > > Stanford > > > > > > > > Encyclopaedia of Philosophy online. It obviously tells you > > > > > > > > nothing I > > > > > > > > haven't heard you say. I'd just offer it with the question > > > > > > > > 'what the > > > > > > > > fuck would we make of academe now under even this apparently > > > > > > > > benign > > > > > > > > heuristic'? > > > > > > > > > 'Finally, a new philosophy of history will be sensitive to the > > > > > > > > variety > > > > > > > > of forms of presentation of historical knowledge. The > > > > > > > > discipline of > > > > > > > > history consists of many threads, including causal explanation, > > > > > > > > material description, and narrative interpretation of human > > > > > > > > action. > > > > > > > > Historical narrative itself has several aspects: a hermeneutic > > > > > > > > story > > > > > > > > that makes sense of a complicated set of actions by different > > > > > > > > actors, > > > > > > > > but also a causal story conveying a set of causal mechanisms > > > > > > > > that came > > > > > > > > together to bring about an outcome. But even more importantly, > > > > > > > > not all > > > > > > > > historical knowledge is expressed in narratives. Rather, there > > > > > > > > is a > > > > > > > > range of cognitive structures through which historical > > > > > > > > knowledge is > > > > > > > > expressed, from detailed measurement of historical standards of > > > > > > > > living, to causal arguments about population change, to > > > > > > > > comparative > > > > > > > > historical accounts of similar processes in different historical > > > > > > > > settings. A new philosophy of history will take the measure of > > > > > > > > synchronous historical writing; historical writing that conveys > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > changing set of economic or structural circumstances; writing > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > observes the changing characteristics of a set of institutions; > > > > > > > > writing that records and analyzes a changing set of beliefs and > > > > > > > > attitudes in a population; and many other varieties as well. > > > > > > > > These are > > > > > > > > important features of the structure of historical knowledge, not > > > > > > > > simply aspects of the rhetoric of historical writing'. > > > > > > > > > We might also wonder what the plain English of this is and how > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > taught some version of it. I could say 'I told you so mate' - > > > > > > > > but you > > > > > > > > can be assured I won't. I haven't seen an genuine innovation in > > > > > > > > academe outside laboratory and mathematical puzzle solving in a > > > > > > > > long > > > > > > > > time. Sue always regarded academics as smug bastards not far > > > > > > > > removed > > > > > > > > from the political scum only fit to vomit on in torrents of gut > > > > > > > > felt > > > > > > > > swearing, and this only at most. I sailed a bit closer to the > > > > > > > > wind > > > > > > > > than that. You could sort of expect to find someone not too > > > > > > > > bothered > > > > > > > > if they could catch your drift. Now I suspect they are all too > > > > > > > > thick, > > > > > > > > products of the pathetic dilution themselves. I'm off to > > > > > > > > Cameroon > > > > > > > > again, by the way. > > > > > > > > > On 11 Nov, 12:18, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 11, 10:35 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Foucault would no doubt have gleaned his BA by using those > > > > > > > > > > buses on > > > > > > > > > > which French radicals gave out course credits saying the > > > > > > > > > > credits are > > > > > > > > > > real but the university imaginary. In my class I would > > > > > > > > > > have responded > > > > > > > > > > by offering you the MA there and then as it's so damned > > > > > > > > > > obvious we > > > > > > > > > > never fail anyone. > > > > > > > > > > Okay let us accept that F might have got his BA on the basis > > > > > > > > > that they > > > > > > > > > fail no one these days. I was wrong. However, given the state > > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > establishment's grip on the balls of free-thinking and > > > > > > > > > radical, new > > > > > > > > > and novel ideas F would not now have been given a position of > > > > > > > > > power > > > > > > > > > inside a university. Neither would Chomsky or any thinker > > > > > > > > > whose urge > > > > > > > > > it might be to refrain from supporting the status quo. > > > > > > > > > The top rung of the university ladder is moribund, ossified > > > > > > > > > and its > > > > > > > > > noses are brown - by sniffing the gravy train. > > > > > > > > > > You would be able to rejoin the course at any time > > > > > > > > > > > by ripping up the gleaming certificate, an interesting > > > > > > > > > > admission > > > > > > > > > > procedure! Nominal would probably find it harder to get > > > > > > > > > > banned from a > > > > > > > > > > British university MA than from 'alt.twatcuntdiscourse'. > > > > > > > > > > ME is a > > > ... > > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
