The sign of pseudo-intellectual
Paul Bailey
be appreciated. Anyway here goes.
From 'The Simpsons'
Meyer: Excuse me, but "proactive" and "paradigm"? Aren't these just
buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important? [back-pedalling] Not that
I'm accusing you of anything like that. [pause] I'm fired, aren't I?
This is of course entirely unrelated to my other post about
oxymoron/serendipity. I'm looking for something like 'Pseudo-Intellectuals
10 tell-tale words'.
Anyone here have an opinion, or even a link, on this?
'Paradigm shift' has got to be top 10.
TIA.
CyberCypher
news:3d73e...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com:
The telltale sign of a pseudo intellectual is the superficial
sprinkling and misuse of terms like "paradigm shift" and name dropping
("Well, Kant and Hegel say . . ." etc) in speech and writing in an
attempt to appear well informed. All it means in most cases is that the
speaker has either read Thomas Kuhn's book or has heard the word used
by others and though it might make him sound well informed if she used
it too. "proactive" is a perfectly good word, unless it is misused, and
one does not need to be an intellectual to understand how to use it.
The use of buzzwords does not betray psuedo intellectuality, just a
desire to be fashionable and a willingness to be so at the expense of
clarity and precision.
--
Franke: Speaker and teacher of Standard International English (SIE)
CyberCypher
news:3d74031e...@news.mia.bellsouth.net:
> "Paul Bailey" <pb...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm looking for something like 'Pseudo-Intellectuals 10 tell-tale
>>words'.
>
> How about "quantum leap"? My understanding is that a quantum is
> the smallest possible increment, but "pseudo-intellectuals" seem
> to think it means something very large instead.
No, that's not the case. Your understanding of the meaning of the
phrase is incorrect. It is, however, more than likely true that most
people who casually use the phrase also do not understand what it
means.
"quantum leap" and "quantum jump" are synonyms.
Main Entry:quantum jump
Variant:or quantum transition
Function:noun
: an abrupt transition (as of an electron, an atom, or a molecule) from
one discrete energy state to another with absorption or emission of a
quantum of energy [W3NID]
There are other phrases, like "steep learning curve", which mean
exactly the opposite of what they are used to mean. While in reality
anything with a steep learning curve is relatively easy to learn,
through usage, it has come to mean something that is difficult to learn
by analogy with mountain climbing, perhaps. "steep learning curve" is
now an accepted idiom that means "difficult and time consuming to
learn".
Aaron J. Dinkin
> "Paul Bailey" <pb...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm looking for something like 'Pseudo-Intellectuals 10 tell-tale words'.
>
> How about "quantum leap"? My understanding is that a quantum is the
> smallest possible increment, but "pseudo-intellectuals" seem to think it
> means something very large instead.
I thought what a "quantum leap" was actually supposed to be was a
transition from one state to another without passing through any
intermediate states, in contrast to continuous progress.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Aaron J. Dinkin
> There are other phrases, like "steep learning curve", which mean
> exactly the opposite of what they are used to mean. While in reality
> anything with a steep learning curve is relatively easy to learn,
> through usage, it has come to mean something that is difficult to learn
> by analogy with mountain climbing, perhaps. "steep learning curve" is
> now an accepted idiom that means "difficult and time consuming to
> learn".
I'm still not convinced by that. I still think that the accepted idiomatic
meaning of "steep learning curve" refers to things that are difficult to
learn because of the large amount of information that must be acquired
very rapidly, which is in keeping with the technical sense of "learning
curve".
Skitt
> (Ramon Kiley) burbled:
>> "Paul Bailey" wrote:
>>> I'm looking for something like 'Pseudo-Intellectuals 10 tell-tale
>>> words'.
>>
>> How about "quantum leap"? My understanding is that a quantum is
>> the smallest possible increment, but "pseudo-intellectuals" seem
>> to think it means something very large instead.
>
> No, that's not the case. Your understanding of the meaning of the
> phrase is incorrect. It is, however, more than likely true that most
> people who casually use the phrase also do not understand what it
> means.
>
> "quantum leap" and "quantum jump" are synonyms.
Well, they *can* be, but not always.
> Main Entry:quantum jump
> Variant:or quantum transition
> Function:noun
>
>> an abrupt transition (as of an electron, an atom, or a molecule) from
> one discrete energy state to another with absorption or emission of a
> quantum of energy [W3NID]
MWCD10:
Main Entry: quantum jump
Function: noun
Date: 1926
1 : an abrupt transition (as of an electron, an atom, or a molecule) from
one discrete energy state to another
2 : QUANTUM LEAP
Main Entry: quantum leap
Function: noun
Date: 1956
: an abrupt change, sudden increase, or dramatic advance
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Pat Durkin
"Paul Bailey" <pb...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:3d73e...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
I think the application of the prefix "pseudo-" to anything other than
scientific words is a usage of one who is putting on airs. It isn't
just dumb people who do it. I think I would rank that as #1.
Pat Durkin
"Aaron J. Dinkin" <a...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:kWTc9.95998$kp.7...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
I heard of that as "sublimation", but that may just be in chemistry. (or
something)
CyberCypher
news:al12eb$1kvtvc$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de:
> CyberCypher wrote:
>> (Ramon Kiley) burbled:
>>> "Paul Bailey" wrote:
>
>>>> I'm looking for something like 'Pseudo-Intellectuals 10
>>>> tell-tale words'.
>>>
>>> How about "quantum leap"? My understanding is that a quantum is
>>> the smallest possible increment, but "pseudo-intellectuals" seem
>>> to think it means something very large instead.
>>
>> No, that's not the case. Your understanding of the meaning of the
>> phrase is incorrect. It is, however, more than likely true that
>> most people who casually use the phrase also do not understand
>> what it means.
>>
>> "quantum leap" and "quantum jump" are synonyms.
>
> Well, they *can* be, but not always.
Thank you for the up-to-date info from MWCD10.
>> Main Entry:quantum jump
>> Variant:or quantum transition
>> Function:noun
>>
>>> an abrupt transition (as of an electron, an atom, or a molecule)
>>> from
>> one discrete energy state to another with absorption or emission
>> of a quantum of energy [W3NID]
>
> MWCD10:
>
> Main Entry: quantum jump
> Function: noun
> Date: 1926
> 1 : an abrupt transition (as of an electron, an atom, or a
> molecule) from one discrete energy state to another
> 2 : QUANTUM LEAP
>
> Main Entry: quantum leap
> Function: noun
> Date: 1956
>: an abrupt change, sudden increase, or dramatic advance
--
Thomas A Lawson
I think we have been around this bush before.
If you plot capability/knowledge/learning against time, which is the
normal way, the steeper the curve the quicker you get up to speed.
The "steep", I think, derives from hillclimbing, which is another
kettle of fish or something.
Whenever I want to stress the difficulty I use the phrase "long
learning curve".
CyberCypher
news:0ZTc9.113410$_91.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net:
This is what it means now, but it does not square with what learning
curves actually have looked like in the past.
I researched this about 1 or 2 years ago. A learning curve measures
learning over time, with amount learned (say, test score) on the
vertical axis and time (or number of test sessions) on the horizontal.
A steep curve would show rapid learning in a short period of time.
CyberCypher
news:0ZTc9.113410$_91.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net:
> On 3 Sep 2002 01:03:11 GMT, CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw>
You can check this out at
www.hp-add.com/images/fig4.gif (image) and
www.hp-add.com/article.htm (article).
and
http://www.supermemo.com/images/ol_fig3.gif
http://www.supermemo.com/articles/ theory.htm
and
http://psy.uq.oz.au/~landcp/PY269/r-wmodel/images/learncurve.gif
Of course, if you reverse the axes, you might get a different picture,
but that doesn't make sense, because the point is to measure learning
and not time..
Paul Pfalzner
"Pat Durkin" <p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:un83pq5...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Aaron J. Dinkin" <a...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> news:kWTc9.95998$kp.7...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
> > transition from one state to another without passing through any
> > intermediate states, in contrast to continuous progress.
>
> I heard of that as "sublimation", but that may just be in chemistry. (or
> something)
You heard right. Snow sublimates in sunlight into vapor without passing through the liquid phase.
This form of sublimation can be observed on bright sunny winter days, especially for snow on a roof
in sunlight. A chemist friend of mine wanted to refer to this process as "the snow sublimes" - I
preferred sublimates.
The other kind of sublimation I try to avoid.
PaPf
Skitt
> "Aaron J. Dinkin" burbled:
>> CyberCypher wrote:
>>> There are other phrases, like "steep learning curve", which mean
>>> exactly the opposite of what they are used to mean. While in
>>> reality anything with a steep learning curve is relatively easy
>>> to learn, through usage, it has come to mean something that is
>>> difficult to learn by analogy with mountain climbing, perhaps.
>>> "steep learning curve" is now an accepted idiom that means
>>> "difficult and time consuming to learn".
>>
>> I'm still not convinced by that. I still think that the accepted
>> idiomatic meaning of "steep learning curve" refers to things that
>> are difficult to learn because of the large amount of information
>> that must be acquired very rapidly, which is in keeping with the
>> technical sense of "learning curve".
>
> You can check this out at
>
> www.hp-add.com/images/fig4.gif (image) and
> www.hp-add.com/article.htm (article).
>
> and
>
> http://www.supermemo.com/images/ol_fig3.gif
> http://www.supermemo.com/articles/ theory.htm
>
> and
>
> http://psy.uq.oz.au/~landcp/PY269/r-wmodel/images/learncurve.gif
>
> Of course, if you reverse the axes, you might get a different picture,
> but that doesn't make sense, because the point is to measure learning
> and not time..
Hmm, not that this solves anything, but in the industry the concern normally
is about how long it will take someone to "get up to speed". Time is of the
essence, so the length of it is what is wanted and measured.
As I have said the last time this came around, the usual concern about new
methods or new people can be expressed by saying "We'll have to consider the
learning curve, because that will slow the project down considerably."
Let's face it, a learning curve, whenever it is brought up, is not good
news.
jan_...@hotmail.com
Pfalzner) wrote:
>
>You heard right. Snow sublimates in sunlight into vapor without passing through the liquid phase.
>This form of sublimation can be observed on bright sunny winter days, especially for snow on a roof
>in sunlight. A chemist friend of mine wanted to refer to this process as "the snow sublimes" - I
>preferred sublimates.
Carbon dioxide ice naturally sublimates to vapor from the solid state
under normal conditions.
Jan Sand
CyberCypher
news:al16sl$1mn9dc$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de:
> CyberCypher wrote:
[...]
>> Of course, if you reverse the axes, you might get a different
>> picture, but that doesn't make sense, because the point is to
>> measure learning and not time..
>
> Hmm, not that this solves anything, but in the industry the
> concern normally is about how long it will take someone to "get up
> to speed". Time is of the essence, so the length of it is what is
> wanted and measured.
Yes, you're right. Time is also the point, especially in industry, so
both are the point, which means I will have to amend my insufficiently
considered statement above.
> As I have said the last time this came around, the usual concern
> about new methods or new people can be expressed by saying "We'll
> have to consider the learning curve, because that will slow the
> project down considerably." Let's face it, a learning curve,
> whenever it is brought up, is not good news.
This is probably why big business no longer bothers to train its new
employees and wants them to be proficient from the gitgo, an
unrealistic expectation in most cases.
jan_...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
>I think the application of the prefix "pseudo-" to anything other than
>scientific words is a usage of one who is putting on airs. It isn't
>just dumb people who do it. I think I would rank that as #1.
>
All of the terms mentioned, pseudo, quantum leap, paradigm shift, etc.
have real and useful meanings to convey concepts and if somebody is
intimidated by them, the trepidation is a problem for the listener,
not the user, unless the terms are misused.
Jan Sand
Aaron J. Dinkin
Right: a large amount of information that must be acquired very rapidly.
Which is, as you say, what it means now.
CyberCypher
There's a difference, though. A steep learning curve would show that a
sufficient amount of information to score well on a test of the learned
information *had been* (not *must be*) acquired very rapidly, and that
would suggest that the task is an easy one or that the testee is a
genius. But when contemporary users of the phrase bemoan the fact that
a large amount of information that must be acquired very rapidly, they
usually are aware of the difficulty or near impossibility of this task.
The learning curves for Corel Draw and Abode Photoshop are so
dauntingly long for someone like me (not an artist and not interested
in messing around with photos) that I am perfectly happy with the
little graphics program that comes attached to Word and Corel
PhotoHouse, which comes with WordPerfect 8. They have very short
learning curves.
Rafael Block
newsbunnies used 'massive' in three consecutive stories within about
three minutes, including 'massive fires'. This may cause another useless
thread, but fire doesn't even have mass, does it?
Peter Moylan
>Meyer: Excuse me, but "proactive" and "paradigm"? Aren't these just
>buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important? [back-pedalling] Not that
>I'm accusing you of anything like that. [pause] I'm fired, aren't I?
>
>This is of course entirely unrelated to my other post about
>oxymoron/serendipity. I'm looking for something like 'Pseudo-Intellectuals
>10 tell-tale words'.
Ten is not enough. With a slightly bigger list, you can set up a
very entertaining game of Bullshit Bingo. What you do is make a
number of cards containing 25 such words, in a 5x5 array. Hand
them out to people going into a meeting, preferably without
letting the speaker know what you're doing.
During the talk, people circle the words as they hear them. The
first person to complete a full row, column, or diagonal jumps
up and shouts "Bullshit!"
This benefits the speaker, who gets a more attentive audience. It's
also good for the audience, who were expecting to have a boring
time. It does, of course, leave the speaker very puzzled when
the winner calls out.
When someone from Personnel (or Organic Resources, or whatever it
happens to be called this week) is giving the talk, the rules have
to be made a little tougher. It spoils the game when it's over
within the first five minutes.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
See http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au for OS/2 information and software
David
jus...@ditpublishing.com says...[cut]
>
> Whenever I want to stress the difficulty I use the phrase "long
> learning curve".
>
Surely all this talk of curves is pseud? Why not just say the
thing is very difficult?
Cheers
jan_...@hotmail.com
Moylan) wrote:
>Ten is not enough. With a slightly bigger list, you can set up a
>very entertaining game of Bullshit Bingo. What you do is make a
>number of cards containing 25 such words, in a 5x5 array. Hand
>them out to people going into a meeting, preferably without
>letting the speaker know what you're doing.
>
>During the talk, people circle the words as they hear them. The
>first person to complete a full row, column, or diagonal jumps
>up and shouts "Bullshit!"
>
>This benefits the speaker, who gets a more attentive audience. It's
>also good for the audience, who were expecting to have a boring
>time. It does, of course, leave the speaker very puzzled when
>the winner calls out.
>
>When someone from Personnel (or Organic Resources, or whatever it
>happens to be called this week) is giving the talk, the rules have
>to be made a little tougher. It spoils the game when it's over
>within the first five minutes.
The concept may be entertaining, but it requires that a major part of
the audience attend the meeting with express purpose of being bored.
Such audiences are not the easiest to persuade to attend. Of course,
if the game becomes popular and acquires a large following, it might
encourage the worst speakers by giving them a large attendance of what
might be a well paying audience if there is an entrance fee. And this
would lead to a competition amongst speakers to see how boring they
might become, not a good thing for encouraging inspiring speech. But
it might be worthwhile amongst religious congregations where people
may feel a duty to attend and need some sort of distraction from the
usual nonsense purveyed.
Jan Sand
Mike Barnes
>On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 01:09:16 GMT, "Aaron J. Dinkin"
><a...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>>On 3 Sep 2002 01:03:11 GMT, CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
>>
>>> There are other phrases, like "steep learning curve", which mean
>>> exactly the opposite of what they are used to mean. While in reality
>>> anything with a steep learning curve is relatively easy to learn,
>>> through usage, it has come to mean something that is difficult to learn
>>> by analogy with mountain climbing, perhaps. "steep learning curve" is
>>> now an accepted idiom that means "difficult and time consuming to
>>> learn".
>>
>>I'm still not convinced by that. I still think that the accepted idiomatic
>>meaning of "steep learning curve" refers to things that are difficult to
>>learn because of the large amount of information that must be acquired
>>very rapidly, which is in keeping with the technical sense of "learning
>>curve".
>>
>>-Aaron J. Dinkin
>>Dr. Whom
>
>I think we have been around this bush before.
We have.
>If you plot capability/knowledge/learning against time, which is the
>normal way, the steeper the curve the quicker you get up to speed.
Huh? What "normal way"? Has anyone ever spotted a "learning curve" in
the wild? I mean something which somebody called a "learning curve"
independent of the term "steep learning curve"?
No, I thought not.
So why does it have to be a graph? Why does the graph have to show
knowledge against time? What has time got to do with it? The important
features are *effort* and *achievement*, not time, surely?
--
Mike Barnes
AlbertPeasemarch
> 10 tell-tale words'.
> 'Paradigm shift' has got to be top 10.
Oh, don't get me started on pretentious words. The following list
doesn't even scrape the surface of my dislikes.
scabrous
dystopian
insight
empathy
plethora
dysfunctional
partake
formulate
underbelly
compelling
moreover
electrifying
visually
contemporary
perceptive
divest
layered
clientele
resonant
apocalyptic
epiphany
perceptive
compulsive
unthinkable
eclectic
cutting edge
maximize
insofar
fiercely
catalyst
extrapolate
osmosis
decadent
parameter
interface
replicate
nurturing
significant
empower
redolent
de rigueur
eventuality
mainstream
far-reaching
idyllic
substantially
parlous
Albert Peasemarch.
jan_...@hotmail.com
(AlbertPeasemarch) wrote:
How about "the". Or perhaps "with". Do they bother you?
Jan Sand
Harvey V
> On 3 Sep 2002 02:03:35 -0700, willis...@yahoo.co.uk
> (AlbertPeasemarch) wrote:
>> "Paul Bailey" <pb...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>> news:<3d73ecc1_1@mk-nntp-
>> I'm looking for something like 'Pseudo-Intellectuals 10 tell-tale
>> words'.
>
>>> 'Paradigm shift' has got to be top 10.
>> Oh, don't get me started on pretentious words. The following list
>> doesn't even scrape the surface of my dislikes.
-snip of list (47 words)-
> How about "the". Or perhaps "with". Do they bother you?
It's the usage of "how about" that really gets me going.....
--
Cheers,
Harvey
David
jan_...@hotmail.com says...[cut]
I am curious, do you really see the words on Albert's list as being
no more unusual than "the" and "with"? However that may be, you can
surely see what sort of words bother him; perhaps you could explain why
one should not find their use pretentious? That the words are popular is
a given, and I suppose almost everyone is led to use them from time to
time, but I must say that as commonly used they seem to me as Albert says
the very hallmarks of shallow understanding.
If you think the matter is not interesting for the group, I would still
appreciate an email if you have the time. :-)
__
dc
AWILLIS957
>From: jan_...@hotmail.com
>How about "the". Or perhaps "with". Do they bother you?
Perhaps I should have said that I don't like the words on my list when they
are used pretentiously or unnecessarily. A word like "interface" has an
appropriate use, obviously.
Albert Peasemarch.
Harvey V
I've got a bit of uneasiness with use of "pretentious" in this context.
The list of words you gave struck me as having at least two, and
possible three, subcategories. Some of them seem more in the realm of
tired humour rather than pretentiousness in the sense of creating a
false impression of distinction or importance.
Similarly, the use -- or rather abuse -- of current buzz-words such as
paradigm and interface strikes me as having less to do with
pretentiousness than it does with trendiness.
Perhaps I'm over-complicating this, but I'd consider pretentious usage
to be high-falutin' and obscure -- using "teleological" outside the
realms of a technical discussion in philosophy or biology, for example.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
jan_...@hotmail.com
OK, but many of the words are exceedingly useful and, on the proper
occasion, very apt. I am always looking for ways to say things that
evoke resonances (another one of your words?) not necessarily evoked
(another one?) by more common expressions.
And beyond my fondness for uncommon speech, how would you detect an
asshole if he didn't use the words you find objectionable? They
classify wonderfully.
Jan Sand
Pete Munro
> This may be borderline trollery, I'm not sure, but responses would
genuinely
> be appreciated. Anyway here goes.
>
> From 'The Simpsons'
>
> buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important? [back-pedalling] Not
that
> I'm accusing you of anything like that. [pause] I'm fired, aren't I?
>
> This is of course entirely unrelated to my other post about
> 10 tell-tale words'.
>
I vote for "leverage" instead of "use", as in "This enables you to leverage
your existing infrastructure".
Who turned "leverage" into a verb?
In one of the Novell newsgroups we were informed that the newsgroup was
being closed and we would need to "transition" our posts elsewhere. I
thanked the poster for notificationing us, however I think the sarcasm was
lost...
Pete
CyberCypher
news:CVxT0PAj...@senrab.com:
Yes, I have and earlier I posted some sites where you can actually see
learning curves graphed and charted and discussed.
> No, I thought not.
You thought wrong, you didn't read the rest of the posts in the thread,
or you didn't think at all, I would say.
> So why does it have to be a graph? Why does the graph have to show
> knowledge against time? What has time got to do with it? The
> important features are *effort* and *achievement*, not time,
> surely?
No, not surely. Mental effort takes a lot of time, unlike physical
effort in, say, a weight lifting contest. But you are right to say that
time is not always on the horizontal axis; sometimes the number of
tests taken has that honor against the test score achieved on the
vertical axis. If you look at the URLs I posted, you will see that.
"effort" is measurable by time spent practicing (and that term can be
applied to foreign languages, symbolic logic, calculus, bowling,
football, software mastery, learning the history of the French
Revolution, etc), so if the learning curve is physically steep, then it
does not require much effort (time) to acquire the knowledge or skills
being measured. Achievement is measurable in terms of test scores. They
don't have to show "knowledge"; they can show skill level, eg, how many
balls you can juggle at one time or how many times in a row you can
kick a 45-yard field goal, or how many consecutive frames you can throw
strikes and spares, etc.
I don't understand what your objection to "time" and "knowledge" are.
In fact, I don't understand why you are objecting at all. Are you an
expert on this sort of thing and just sneering at the rest of us
learning-curve lubbers?
CyberCypher
news:3d747f66....@east.usenetserver.com:
Albert apparently likes people to say simply and clearly what they mean
instead of using the wrong words. Most of those words are certainly
misusable and are often misused, used in contexts where they become
absurd choices, and used pretentiously, eg "parlous". Many of them are
perfectly natural and normal words in their proper contexts, eg
"catalyst", which is used non-pretentiously by millions of chemistry
students and teachers round the world.
GrapeApe
I use this because it uses less syl-lobbles than the other ways of saying the
same thing. Can you come up with a plainer english version?
An overall shift in the Contemporary Wisdoms point of view?
It ain't seen that way much anymore?
The situation has changed ,in the view of many?
I like Weltanshuang for the same reasons, but I can't spell it and it isn't
even in most German English dictionaries.
Harvey V
> On 3 Sep 2002 01:03:11 GMT, CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw>
> wrote:
-snip re: "steep learning curve"
>> "steep learning curve" is now an accepted idiom that means
>> "difficult and time consuming to learn".
> I'm still not convinced by that. I still think that the accepted
> idiomatic meaning of "steep learning curve" refers to things that
> are difficult to learn because of the large amount of information
> that must be acquired very rapidly, which is in keeping with the
> technical sense of "learning curve".
I find it interesting that you both agree that the popular use of
"steep learning curve" includes the concept of difficulty.
I've always taken it to mean simply that one learns a lot about
something new -- often out of necessity -- and learns it very quickly.
Quick learning, in depth: can be simple or difficult, but not slowly
acquired or shallow.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Tony Cooper
> The learning curves for Corel Draw and Abode Photoshop are so
> dauntingly long for someone like me (not an artist and not interested
> in messing around with photos) that I am perfectly happy with the
> little graphics program that comes attached to Word and Corel
> PhotoHouse, which comes with WordPerfect 8. They have very short
> learning curves.
I've been using Corel Draw for several years. I recently jumped into
Photoshop 7 and have been self-teaching it to myself. It's a complex
program, but learnable once you get into the swing of things. Most
people seemed to have started with PS 2 or so, and have just added to
their knowledge. Since I started with 7, it's more difficult. The
deeper I go in it, though, the easier the new steps are. I posted
something here just a month or so back that I did with PS7 (auer's
playing poker), that is a primitive effort compared to what I could do
with the same project today.
There's a newsgroup for Photoshop, and many on-line tutorials. I'll
take some technique discussed in NG thread and try it out. I find this
very helpful.
My daughter is not particularly computer adept. She just purchased a
digital camera and has become interested in the manipulation of photos
on the computer. She has Adobe's Photo DeLuxe (a bare-bones Photoshop
type of program) and Corel's Print House. I have been sending her
manuals that I've prepared using screen shots and step-by-step
instructions on things like taking out telephone poles sticking out of
subject's heads. I find that preparing instructions for someone else
increases my knowledge and technique. It forces me to think "exactly
how do I do this".
The one thing I've never been able to accomplish is to adjust my printer
and monitor to be on the same page in color. I'll work with a photo
that has perfect color on the monitor, and then print out something that
is a ghastly parody. Gamma settings are too tricky for me to manage. I
end up compensating on the screen for what I know will print.
Eventually, I'll get a newer printer which will make this easier or
automatic. HP (pardon me, Evan) is not as good as Epson in this area.
--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles
Pat Durkin
"AlbertPeasemarch" <willis...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42b35aa5.02090...@posting.google.com...
Can I suggest adding "brunt" to the list? I think that in the past year
this word has replaced about 10 others. I have put in my list of
overused fad words to accompany pop words like "charisma".
Spehro Pefhany
> I'm still not convinced by that. I still think that the accepted idiomatic
> meaning of "steep learning curve" refers to things that are difficult to
> learn because of the large amount of information that must be acquired
> very rapidly, which is in keeping with the technical sense of "learning
> curve".
I don't think the speed of learning has much to do with the way
"steep learning curve" is typically used. It is used to refer to a process
where initially there is rather little practical reward for a great deal
of expended effort, followed by more progress per unit effort.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
9-11 United we Stand
GrapeApe
No, it really means "Its really easy once you get the hang of it, but initially
it can be difficult to grasp". Its a curve with a steep slope on the front end
and perhaps a plateau afterwards. "Aha!" is the top of the roller coaster.
A "steep learning curve" means exactly that. there is a bump, an obstacle in
understanding to overcome, one that might discourage some, so stick with it. It
has useful meaning as most people use it. It could be misused probably.
Tony Cooper
"Peter Moylan" <pe...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au> wrote in message
news:slrnan8jg...@eepjm.newcastle.edu.au...
Several years ago we used to do a similar thing at meetings. We'd draw
a card with a buzz word on it, and the holder of the card with the first
buzz word used had to buy the first round in the drinkies after.
"Synergistic" was the usual winner in those days.
I think that "grow", as in grow your business or grow your market, would
be today's winner.
This usage elicits a groan from me every time I hear it.
Tony Cooper
> The concept may be entertaining, but it requires that a major part of
> the audience attend the meeting with express purpose of being bored.
You've never worked for a large corporation, have you? What we have
here is a given.
Harvey V
> The renowned Aaron J. Dinkin <a...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>> I'm still not convinced by that. I still think that the accepted
>> idiomatic meaning of "steep learning curve" refers to things that
>> are difficult to learn because of the large amount of information
>> that must be acquired very rapidly, which is in keeping with the
>> technical sense of "learning curve".
>
> I don't think the speed of learning has much to do with the way
> "steep learning curve" is typically used. It is used to refer to a
> process where initially there is rather little practical reward
> for a great deal of expended effort, followed by more progress per
> unit effort.
Intriguing: as I noted in another post, I'd have said that the essence
of the popular usage related to the speed of learning and amount
learned, rather than reward or difficulty.
For example: when I first got a computer capable of an internet
connection, I had a pig of time getting the thing going. I learned
more about stuff like TCP/IP protocols, settings and the some of the
weirder depths of Windows than I had any desire to know, and learned
about them in double-fast time because I had to get the e-mail link
working.
I'd have said this is a classic[1] case of what is popularly meant by
"steep learning curve".
[1]Another candidate for the list?
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 20 years.
Tony Cooper
news:Xns927E6BC0...@62.253.162.109...
There are certain word groups that are audible keys to incoming boredom.
When a speaker asks for the lights to be dimmed for his slides,
projections, or - today - computer screen to be viewed, and says "Let's
examine the......." it's time for 40 winks.
Harvey V
><jan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> it requires that a major part of the audience attend the meeting
>> with express purpose of being bored.
> You've never worked for a large corporation, have you? What we
> have here is a given.
Dilbert is more of a documentary than a cartoon.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Tony Cooper
"Harvey V" <harve...@REMOVETHISntlworld.com> wrote in message
> Perhaps I'm over-complicating this, but I'd consider pretentious usage
> to be high-falutin' and obscure -- using "teleological" outside the
> realms of a technical discussion in philosophy or biology, for
example.
The simple words can be used pretentiously. The speaker that says "We
are witnessing a paradigm shift in......." usually just means that we
are seeing a change. The nature of the change is seldom in the paradigm
shift category.
Spehro Pefhany
> The simple words can be used pretentiously. The speaker that says "We
> are witnessing a paradigm shift in......." usually just means that we
> are seeing a change. The nature of the change is seldom in the paradigm
> shift category.
Could we just take this to be the usual inflation of words? After all,
when the "revolutionary" widget 1.1 is introduced, replacing widget 1.0,
there is seldom an actual revolution taking place.
John Hatpin
[...]
>Intriguing: as I noted in another post, I'd have said that the essence
>of the popular usage related to the speed of learning and amount
>learned, rather than reward or difficulty.
>
>For example: when I first got a computer capable of an internet
>connection, I had a pig of time getting the thing going. I learned
>more about stuff like TCP/IP protocols, settings and the some of the
>weirder depths of Windows than I had any desire to know, and learned
>about them in double-fast time because I had to get the e-mail link
>working.
>
>I'd have said this is a classic[1] case of what is popularly meant by
>"steep learning curve".
>
>[1]Another candidate for the list?
A good example, and so is the Photoshop one. I'll add setting up your
first Linux machine.
The P100 next to me had Debian on it, but I couldn't get networking
and modem-sharing working properly, so I installed Red Hat, and didn't
even get that far - it won't configure the network card, and the GUI
installer doesn't say why.
The reason I brought this up was that this was an example of both a
"steep learning curve" and a "steep forgetting curve". Because I've
not had time to do anything on it since the summer holidays started,
I've forgotten most of what I'd learned in July.
Presumably, the learning curve will be a different shape when I start
again next week, and the memories come flooding back, although whether
it's steeper or not depends on how you calculate the vertical axis.
--
John H
Yorkshire, England
John Hatpin
>This may be borderline trollery, I'm not sure, but responses would genuinely
>be appreciated. Anyway here goes.
>
>From 'The Simpsons'
>
>Meyer: Excuse me, but "proactive" and "paradigm"? Aren't these just
>buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important? [back-pedalling] Not that
>I'm accusing you of anything like that. [pause] I'm fired, aren't I?
>
>This is of course entirely unrelated to my other post about
>oxymoron/serendipity. I'm looking for something like 'Pseudo-Intellectuals
>10 tell-tale words'.
>
>Anyone here have an opinion, or even a link, on this?
>
>'Paradigm shift' has got to be top 10.
Not so much "pseudo-intellectual" (whatever that is), but on the
general lines of this thread, what about "joined-up"? How I loathe
that term these days.
We in the UK supposedly have "joined-up government" who claim to do
some "joined-up thinking". Presumably, the first example means that
they're claiming that inter-departmental communication is improved,
but the second usage just seems to imply "better" or "clearer". I've
heard all sorts of uses of that in corporate BS.
Quite what all this has to do with cursive script (which was called
"joined-up writing" in my early youth) is unknown. Maybe there's an
implication of copperplate versus childish scrawl, a kind of maturity
issue, or something.
M.J.Powell
<pe...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au> writes
>Paul Bailey <pb...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>>Meyer: Excuse me, but "proactive" and "paradigm"? Aren't these just
>>buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important? [back-pedalling] Not that
>>I'm accusing you of anything like that. [pause] I'm fired, aren't I?
>>
>>This is of course entirely unrelated to my other post about
>>oxymoron/serendipity. I'm looking for something like 'Pseudo-Intellectuals
>>10 tell-tale words'.
>
>very entertaining game of Bullshit Bingo. What you do is make a
>number of cards containing 25 such words, in a 5x5 array. Hand
>them out to people going into a meeting, preferably without
>letting the speaker know what you're doing.
>
>During the talk, people circle the words as they hear them. The
>first person to complete a full row, column, or diagonal jumps
>up and shouts "Bullshit!"
>
>This benefits the speaker, who gets a more attentive audience. It's
>also good for the audience, who were expecting to have a boring
>time. It does, of course, leave the speaker very puzzled when
>the winner calls out.
>
>When someone from Personnel (or Organic Resources, or whatever it
>happens to be called this week) is giving the talk, the rules have
>to be made a little tougher. It spoils the game when it's over
>within the first five minutes.
This parallels the game we played in TV Vision Control during a
'talking-heads' arts programme. Some of the buzz words were: genre, deus
ex machina and others which I've forgotten because I've been out of the
game for 14 years. The words still ring a bell though.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
M.J.Powell
<fra...@seed.net.tw> writes
>ramon...@GoFor21.com (Ramon Kiley) burbled
>news:3d74031e...@news.mia.bellsouth.net:
>> "Paul Bailey" <pb...@lineone.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm looking for something like 'Pseudo-Intellectuals 10 tell-tale
>>>words'.
>>
>> the smallest possible increment, but "pseudo-intellectuals" seem
>> to think it means something very large instead.
>
>No, that's not the case. Your understanding of the meaning of the
>phrase is incorrect. It is, however, more than likely true that most
>people who casually use the phrase also do not understand what it
>means.
>
>"quantum leap" and "quantum jump" are synonyms.
>
>Main Entry:quantum jump
>Variant:or quantum transition
>Function:noun
>
>: an abrupt transition (as of an electron, an atom, or a molecule) from
>one discrete energy state to another with absorption or emission of a
>quantum of energy [W3NID]
But the electron cannot stop half-way, the quantum change is the
smallest possible.
>
>There are other phrases, like "steep learning curve", which mean
>exactly the opposite of what they are used to mean. While in reality
>anything with a steep learning curve is relatively easy to learn,
>through usage, it has come to mean something that is difficult to learn
>by analogy with mountain climbing, perhaps. "steep learning curve" is
>now an accepted idiom that means "difficult and time consuming to
>learn".
I always thought that 'a steep learning curve' meant that one had a lot
of learning to do in a very short space of time, ie the curve of
information to be learned against time is very steep.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
B Briggs
"Aaron J. Dinkin" <a...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:U0Wc9.339313$UU1.58453@sccrnsc03...
> On 3 Sep 2002 01:42:23 GMT, CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
>
> > "Aaron J. Dinkin" <a...@post.harvard.edu> burbled
> > news:0ZTc9.113410$_91.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net:
> >>> exactly the opposite of what they are used to mean. While in
> >>> reality anything with a steep learning curve is relatively easy
> >>> to learn, through usage, it has come to mean something that is
> >>> difficult to learn by analogy with mountain climbing, perhaps.
> >>> "steep learning curve" is now an accepted idiom that means
> >>> "difficult and time consuming to learn".
> >>
> >> idiomatic meaning of "steep learning curve" refers to things that
> >> are difficult to learn because of the large amount of information
> >> that must be acquired very rapidly, which is in keeping with the
> >> technical sense of "learning curve".
> >
> > curves actually have looked like in the past.
> >
> > I researched this about 1 or 2 years ago. A learning curve measures
> > learning over time, with amount learned (say, test score) on the
> > vertical axis and time (or number of test sessions) on the horizontal.
> > A steep curve would show rapid learning in a short period of time.
>
> Right: a large amount of information that must be acquired very rapidly.
> Which is, as you say, what it means now.
>
The curve would also be steeper when the horizontal axis is shortened. In
commercial application, the time frame allowed to learn the new information
is usually set to a deadline. When I was upgrading my licensing several
years ago, there was a great amount of information that I needed to learn in
a very short time in order to take the test. If I had more time the curve
would not have been as steep.
Barbara
jan_...@hotmail.com
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
><jan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> The concept may be entertaining, but it requires that a major part of
>> the audience attend the meeting with express purpose of being bored.
>
>You've never worked for a large corporation, have you? What we have
>here is a given.
No, I've never worked for a large corporation, but I imagine a kind of
conspiracy in the captive audience to openly acknowledge how boring
the executives might be would not be looked upon benignly by those in
charge.
Jan Sand
R H Draney
news:42b35aa5.02090...@posting.google.com:
> Oh, don't get me started on pretentious words. The following list
> doesn't even scrape the surface of my dislikes.
>
When I use "extrapolate" or "parameter", I mean them in the technical
sense; I have no control over how other people use such words, beyond
breaking into fits of laughter when the intended meaning is at obvious
odds with what the word actually means....
I see you missed out "granular"...is that not as widespread as I
thought it was?....r
Padraig Breathnach
>I've been using Corel Draw for several years. I recently jumped into
>Photoshop 7 and have been self-teaching it to myself.
To whom else might you self-teach?
PB
David
grap...@aol.comjunk says...
curves with their insinuation of scientific approval unnecessary.
Cheers
__
dc
Gene Wirchenko
>On 3 Sep 2002 01:42:23 GMT, CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
[snip]
>> I researched this about 1 or 2 years ago. A learning curve measures
>> learning over time, with amount learned (say, test score) on the
>> vertical axis and time (or number of test sessions) on the horizontal.
>> A steep curve would show rapid learning in a short period of time.
>
>Right: a large amount of information that must be acquired very rapidly.
No, a large amount of information that IS acquired very rapidly.
A learning curve refers to how much learning occurred, NOT how much
there is to learn.
>Which is, as you say, what it means now.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
AWILLIS957
>When I use "extrapolate" or "parameter", I mean them in the technical
>sense; I have no control over how other people use such words, beyond
>breaking into fits of laughter when the intended meaning is at obvious
>odds with what the word actually means..
Agreed. I read a lot about the arts, and that's a field full of a certain kind
of guff. I have a lovely book of Paula Rego drawings, for example. The
commentary in the book is, unlike Rego's work, almost unreadably pretentious,
in my opinion.
"From the outset, Paula Rego's work has been shaped by a will-to-narrative. In
keeping with the most enthralling storytellers, she sabotages the 'once upon a
time' of conventional narrative temporality with a disruptive sense of the
present. This present tense hinders the lulling potential of narrative
'pastness', ruffling its smooth and seamless linearity. Narrative is, for Paula
Rego, more than the detached telling of a story: it is the provision of a
containing environment where contradictions are held rather than suppressed,
and where various versions of the self are enacted. If there is also an element
of exposure and cleansing - part religious confessional, part psychoanalist's
divan - in this will to narrate, it emerges not only from a maudlin desire for
personal catharsis, but rather from a belief that only in the representation of
certain emotional and physical realities (the two are inextricably linked) do
those 'realities make any sense at all. And in making sense, signify. It is as
though, without the mediating act of drawing, emotion returns to its earlier
and as yet unformed, uncharted, disembodied and terrifying fluidity."
It's all like that. To think someone (Ruth Rosengarten) got paid to write that.
There's nothing wrong with words like "enthralling" and "sabotages" in
themselves, of course. It's just the way they are used.
Albert Peasemarch.
Mike Barnes
>Mike Barnes <mi...@senrab.com> burbled
>news:CVxT0PAj...@senrab.com:
>
>> In alt.usage.english, Thomas A Lawson <jus...@ditpublishing.com>
>> wrote
>>>If you plot capability/knowledge/learning against time, which is
>>>the normal way, the steeper the curve the quicker you get up to
>>>speed.
>>
>> Huh? What "normal way"? Has anyone ever spotted a "learning curve"
>> in the wild? I mean something which somebody called a "learning
>> curve" independent of the term "steep learning curve"?
>
>Yes, I have and earlier I posted some sites where you can actually see
>learning curves graphed and charted and discussed.
I stand corrected. I must admit my patience in investigating your links
gave out after the first had no mention of "learning curve", the second
was unavailable from the server (now seems to work OK), the third had no
mention of "learning curve", the fourth gave a directory listing (which
I now see was caused by a typo), and so on.
Now that the second URL gets me somewhere and I've spotted the typo in
the fourth URL, I see what you mean.
>> So why does it have to be a graph? Why does the graph have to show
>> knowledge against time? What has time got to do with it? The
>> important features are *effort* and *achievement*, not time,
>> surely?
>
>No, not surely. Mental effort takes a lot of time, unlike physical
>effort in, say, a weight lifting contest. But you are right to say that
>time is not always on the horizontal axis; sometimes the number of
>tests taken has that honor against the test score achieved on the
>vertical axis. If you look at the URLs I posted, you will see that.
>
>"effort" is measurable by time spent practicing (and that term can be
>applied to foreign languages, symbolic logic, calculus, bowling,
>football, software mastery, learning the history of the French
>Revolution, etc), so if the learning curve is physically steep, then it
>does not require much effort (time) to acquire the knowledge or skills
>being measured.
I think you overstate the correlation between effort and time. Sometimes
there's a close correlation, sometimes there isn't. In language study,
for instance, practice time is all-important. But when learning
complicated technology from an unhelpful reference book, the idea that
all you need is lots of practice is completely inapplicable. In that
situation, it's intense concentration and intellectual effort that are
required. Time is involved, obviously, but the amount of time you spend
on it does not correlate well with the *effort* you put into it.
And I think that when people talk of "steep learning curves", they're
usually referring to the sort of task that is characterised by a need
for quality, rather than quantity, of learning activity.
>Achievement is measurable in terms of test scores. They
>don't have to show "knowledge"; they can show skill level, eg, how many
>balls you can juggle at one time or how many times in a row you can
>kick a 45-yard field goal, or how many consecutive frames you can throw
>strikes and spares, etc.
Agreed.
>I don't understand what your objection to "time" and "knowledge" are.
I don't object to them, but I did question the assumption that the
"learning curve" normally consists of "capability/knowledge/learning
against time". The links you posted have answered my doubts, to some
extent. Thanks.
--
Mike Barnes
jan_...@hotmail.com
Reluctantly, I have to agree with you that language is frequently used
to misdirect and confuse, but the arts are not alone in these
techniques. The present political effort to mask the drive to take
control of Iraq's oil with all the hooferaw about defending liberty
and smashing terrorism is equally disturbing. I am not denying the
actual viciousness of misguided Islam nor saying that real dangers do
not exist, merely that the language used to cover the real purposes of
the coming action is just as cockeyed as the weird misappropriation of
terminology used by your example. It is everywhere in human
communication.
Jan Sand
Evan Kirshenbaum
> The renowned Tony Cooper <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The simple words can be used pretentiously. The speaker that says
> > "We are witnessing a paradigm shift in......." usually just means
> > that we are seeing a change. The nature of the change is seldom
> > in the paradigm shift category.
>
> Could we just take this to be the usual inflation of words? After
> all, when the "revolutionary" widget 1.1 is introduced, replacing
> widget 1.0, there is seldom an actual revolution taking place.
When core memory replaced drum memory, was that a revolutionary change
or not?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There are two types of people -
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |those who are one of the two types
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |of people, and those who are not.
| Leigh Blue Caldwell
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Ross Klatte
>Date: 2002-09-03 13:26 Eastern Daylight Time
>"Spehro Pefhany" <sp...@interlog.com> writes:
>> Could we just take this to be the usual inflation of words? After
>> all, when the "revolutionary" widget 1.1 is introduced, replacing
>> widget 1.0, there is seldom an actual revolution taking place.
>
>When core memory replaced drum memory, was that a revolutionary change
>or not?
Did the Cores storm the Drum castle, free all the staring Core prisoners,
distribute the rich Drums' estates to landless Cores, kill hundreds
of Drums, raise the Core banner, and proclaim the arrival of
eternal freedom and happiness?
Or did some odd-smelling geek shuffle in and swap a few cables?
Ross
Roebuck, South Carolina
http://community.webshots.com/user/ross_klatte
Paul Bailey
title and then posting it to an English usage NG.
Oh well.
Paul Bailey
> smallest possible increment, but "pseudo-intellectuals" seem to think it
> means something very large instead.
>
Agreed. I'll add it to the collection.
Paul Bailey
> sprinkling and misuse of terms like "paradigm shift" and name dropping
> ("Well, Kant and Hegel say . . ." etc) in speech and writing in an
> attempt to appear well informed. All it means in most cases is that the
> speaker has either read Thomas Kuhn's book or has heard the word used
> by others and though it might make him sound well informed if she used
> it too. "proactive" is a perfectly good word, unless it is misused, and
> one does not need to be an intellectual to understand how to use it.
>
> The use of buzzwords does not betray psuedo intellectuality, just a
> desire to be fashionable and a willingness to be so at the expense of
> clarity and precision.
>
Man that's a good answer. Thanks.
Padraig Breathnach
I'm not sure about this. A quantum leap involves a change in the state
of something.
PB
Lisa Lundgren
> "Paul Bailey" <pb...@lineone.net> wrote in message news:<3d73ecc1_1@mk-nntp-I'm looking for something like 'Pseudo-Intellectuals
> > 10 tell-tale words'.
>
>
> doesn't even scrape the surface of my dislikes.
[the rest snipped]
It's nice to see that the thread is finally back on topic, and I
appreciate your tag to the list, in which you explain that it's the
unnecessary use of the words in the list that bothers you. I tend to
agree, but wouldn't try to list all of the words that I've heard used
unnecessarily. In this context, "the" and "which" could both find
respectable positions on such a list, heuristic/stochastic matrices
notwithstanding, of course.
YIC,
Lisa Lundgren
Skitt
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> it requires that a major part of the audience attend the meeting
>>> with express purpose of being bored.
>
>> You've never worked for a large corporation, have you? What we
>> have here is a given.
>
> Dilbert is more of a documentary than a cartoon.
Reading Dilbert, at first we, Lockheed employees, thought that Scott Adams
surely worked at Lockheed. Then we learned that PacBell, his employer, was
just like Lockheed in most respects.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Steve Hayes
>'Paradigm shift' has got to be top 10.
Well at least it's within the parameters.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Skitt
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> "Spehro Pefhany" writes:
>>> Could we just take this to be the usual inflation of words? After
>>> all, when the "revolutionary" widget 1.1 is introduced, replacing
>>> widget 1.0, there is seldom an actual revolution taking place.
>>
>> When core memory replaced drum memory, was that a revolutionary
>> change or not?
>
> Did the Cores storm the Drum castle, free all the staring Core
> prisoners, distribute the rich Drums' estates to landless Cores, kill
> hundreds of Drums, raise the Core banner, and proclaim the arrival of
> eternal freedom and happiness?
>
> Or did some odd-smelling geek shuffle in and swap a few cables?
I think you missed Evan's anti-revolutionary point.
Spehro Pefhany
> "Spehro Pefhany" <sp...@interlog.com> writes:
>
>> The renowned Tony Cooper <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The simple words can be used pretentiously. The speaker that says
>> > "We are witnessing a paradigm shift in......." usually just means
>> > that we are seeing a change. The nature of the change is seldom
>> > in the paradigm shift category.
>>
>> Could we just take this to be the usual inflation of words? After
>> all, when the "revolutionary" widget 1.1 is introduced, replacing
>> widget 1.0, there is seldom an actual revolution taking place.
>
> When core memory replaced drum memory, was that a revolutionary change
> or not?
It was more of a paradigm shift- from linearly accessed serial memory to
true random access memory.
(I'll ignore the remark about odd-smelling geeks, as it hits remarkably
close to home at the moment).
Skitt
> "Paul Bailey" wrote:
>> This is of course entirely unrelated to my other post about
>> oxymoron/serendipity. I'm looking for something like
>> 'Pseudo-Intellectuals 10 tell-tale words'.
>
> I vote for "leverage" instead of "use", as in "This enables you to
> leverage your existing infrastructure".
>
> Who turned "leverage" into a verb?
I don't know, but it was done before your time, I think -- 1937, according
to MWCD10.
Evan Kirshenbaum
You know, there just might be an even older meaning of the word
"revolution".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |You gotta know when to code,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Know when to log out,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Know when to single step,
| Know when you're through.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |You don't write your program
(650)857-7572 | When you're sittin' at the term'nal.
|There'll be time enough for writin'
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | When you're in the queue.
Skitt
As I have noted before --
MWCD10:
Main Entry: quantum leap
Function: noun
Date: 1956
: an abrupt change, sudden increase, or dramatic advance
"A dramatic advance" is what is usually meant. This is not to be confused
with some meanings of "quantum jump".
Pat Durkin
"Skitt" <sk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:al2vmd$1mi81o$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de...
> Pete Munro wrote:
> > "Paul Bailey" wrote:
>
> >> This is of course entirely unrelated to my other post about
> >> oxymoron/serendipity. I'm looking for something like
> >> 'Pseudo-Intellectuals 10 tell-tale words'.
> >
> > I vote for "leverage" instead of "use", as in "This enables you to
> > leverage your existing infrastructure".
> >
> > Who turned "leverage" into a verb?
>
> I don't know, but it was done before your time, I think -- 1937,
according
> to MWCD10.
As a verb, I associate it with arbitrage, but I have never heard the
performers as leverageurs.
Paul Bailey
> >> smallest possible increment, but "pseudo-intellectuals" seem to think
it
> >> means something very large instead.
> >>
> >
> >Agreed. I'll add it to the collection.
> >
> I'm not sure about this. A quantum leap involves a change in the state
> of something.
>
To me it fits the bill perfectly. AIUI the term quantum was originally used
as a description of the *smallest* possible change in energy levels. Again
AIUI it's impossible to overstate the force behind this word (and this
idea). A quantum is absolutely the smallest change possible, nothing
smaller is possible. A revolutionary idea at the time - Planck proposed that
nature was discrete and not continuous in order to explain hitherto
paradoxical phenomena. Hey, a real paradigm shift ;-)
BTW I don't know if the folks round these parts have any interest in quantum
physics but if you want something that challenges the way you perceive the
world this is the place to go. Mind boggling.
Paul Bailey
John Hall
Malcolm) wrote:
>Drum memory was revolutionary; core memory was counter-revolutionary.
Specially in the case where a jet of cooling oil spun some of the
cores on their wires, until they cut right thru, then we had a severe
case of "dropped bits".
--
John W Hall <wweexxss...@telusplanet.net>
Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
"Helping People Prosper in the Information Age"
John Hatpin
The quantum physics description in the introduction to the Michael
Crichton novel "Timeline" made fascinating reading, and may even be
fairly accurate. Is this so? Any recommendations for the Next Step?
I'm no physicist, but an interested layman.
Shame about the novel itself, though. Complete crap, as you'd expect.
--
John H
Yorkshire, England
Paul Bailey
> >> of something.
> >>
> >
> >To me it fits the bill perfectly. AIUI the term quantum was originally
used
> >as a description of the *smallest* possible change in energy levels.
Again
> >AIUI it's impossible to overstate the force behind this word (and this
> >idea). A quantum is absolutely the smallest change possible, nothing
> >smaller is possible. A revolutionary idea at the time - Planck proposed
that
> >nature was discrete and not continuous in order to explain hitherto
> >paradoxical phenomena. Hey, a real paradigm shift ;-)
> >
> >BTW I don't know if the folks round these parts have any interest in
quantum
> >physics but if you want something that challenges the way you perceive
the
> >world this is the place to go. Mind boggling.
>
> The quantum physics description in the introduction to the Michael
> Crichton novel "Timeline" made fascinating reading, and may even be
> fairly accurate. Is this so? Any recommendations for the Next Step?
> I'm no physicist, but an interested layman.
>
> Shame about the novel itself, though. Complete crap, as you'd expect.
Can't comment on 'Timeline'.
I'd recommend 'In Search of Schrodinger's Cat' by John Gribbin.
Like I said mind boggling. I hope you find it as enjoyable as I did.
jan_...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>> "Paul Bailey" <pb...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>>>> How about "quantum leap"? My understanding is that a quantum is the
>>>> smallest possible increment, but "pseudo-intellectuals" seem to
>>>> think it means something very large instead.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed. I'll add it to the collection.
>>>
>> I'm not sure about this. A quantum leap involves a change in the state
>> of something.
>
>As I have noted before --
>
>MWCD10:
>Main Entry: quantum leap
>Function: noun
>Date: 1956
>: an abrupt change, sudden increase, or dramatic advance
>
>"A dramatic advance" is what is usually meant. This is not to be confused
>with some meanings of "quantum jump".
Electromagetic energy travels in packets called quantums. Each atom
consists of a nucleus and a surrounding group of electrons. When
energy is absorbed by the atom, the energy is accepted in dscrete
packages, the quanta. Each electron is at an energy level around the
nucleus. When I took physics a long while ago the elecrons were
assigned shells. some closer to the nucleus and some further away. I
don't know if this concept is still held but it makes sense to me.
When an electron absorbed a quantum of energy it moved outward into a
larger shell, but there is no intermediate position between the shells
through which the electron moves. It merely disappears from its
previous shell and reappears in the next shell. Therefore the "leap"
is through no intermediate positions. When the electron moves down
towards an inner shell, it emits a quantum of energy. These quanta of
electromagnetic energy differ in intensity. They correspond to
wavelengths of light. Therefore when an atom absorbs energy it creates
black spaces in a continuous color spectrum. When they release energy
they create colored lines in the same places where the absorption
spectrum indicated black lines. Each element emits or absorbs a
characteristic group of lines in the spectrum which is how astronomers
can see what elements are in stars, or are in dust clouds obscuring
stars.
Jan Sand
Harvey V
>>>> How about "quantum leap"? My understanding is that a quantum is
>>>> the smallest possible increment, but "pseudo-intellectuals"
>>>> seem to think it means something very large instead.
>>> Agreed. I'll add it to the collection.
>> I'm not sure about this. A quantum leap involves a change in the
>> state of something.
> To me it fits the bill perfectly. AIUI the term quantum was
> originally used as a description of the *smallest* possible change
> in energy levels.
The analogy I've heard is as follows:
Imagine a spectrum which runs from true black to true white, with an
infinite gradation of greys in between. If one moves from black to
white, at some point in mid-grey one has moved from "black" to "white",
and it is almost-undetectable change which represents a quantum change.
Does that sound reasonable -- as a lay analogy?
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Mike Lyle
> "Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I've been using Corel Draw for several years. I recently jumped into
> >Photoshop 7 and have been self-teaching it to myself.
>
> To whom else might you self-teach?
>
Well, isn't it himself, at all? I wonder if it's still do-it-yourself
if you do it for somebody else?
I wonder, too, why the Gaelicism "him[etc]self" doesn't have an
analogue in Wenglish. Does the Gaelic (both mainland and Scottish)
original have a nominative? The Welsh equivalent has to be written as
two words, and seems to parallel present-day English in not having a
nominative: *I myself* is *fi fy hun*. (I wish we had some real
Welsh-speakers in this team.)
And there aren't any kenspeckle Scots, either,is it?
Mike.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> writes:
>
> >When core memory replaced drum memory, was that a revolutionary
> >change or not?
>
> Drum memory was revolutionary; core memory was
> counter-revolutionary.
No. It just sat there.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Sometimes I think the surest sign
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that intelligent life exists
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |elsewhere in the universe is that
|none of it has tried to contact us.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Calvin
(650)857-7572
Skitt
> "Skitt" wrote:
>> Padraig Breathnach wrote:
That is a nice explanation of a Physics process, but is has very little to
do with a "quantum leap" in its usual or common usage. What you are
describing is the process defined by the original meaning of "quantum jump".
That is exactly what I was referring to when I previously (with supportive
dictionary definitions) posted that the two terms are not always synonymous.
Paul Bailey
> > originally used as a description of the *smallest* possible change
> > in energy levels.
>
> The analogy I've heard is as follows:
>
> Imagine a spectrum which runs from true black to true white, with an
> infinite gradation of greys in between. If one moves from black to
> white, at some point in mid-grey one has moved from "black" to "white",
> and it is almost-undetectable change which represents a quantum change.
>
> Does that sound reasonable -- as a lay analogy?
>
I can't believe people are asking *me* about quantum physics like I've any
idea what I'm talking about. Still here goes. The analogy you describe is
interesting and maybe someone else can find a word to fit it but IMO that's
not a quantum change.
If you understand the difference between discrete and continuous then you
understand quantum changes. Your foot grows continuously, no need for quanta
here, it's a completely smooth process without any sudden leaps. Compare
that with your shoe size which goes up in quantum leaps of either a whole or
a half size depending on what they've got in the shop.
Basically uf you measure it it's continuous and if you count it it's
discrete.
Continuous: your height, your weight, temperature, time.
Confusing caveat - although these amounts are represented by say 9.93 9.94
for the times of a 100m race these are only approximations the true nature
of these times is for our purposes continuous. The true nature of anything
is of course the domain of a philosophy group.
Discrete: The number of people in a queue, the numbers of apples on trees in
an orchard, energy!
Instinctively you may think of energy as being like time continuous. What
Max Planck proposed was that it comes in packets/jumps/steps. This still
seems counter intuitive to me (like a lot of the best ideas) but that's the
way the world is apparently.
Please tell me this is clearer. I'll try again if it's not but I'm running
out of examples :-)
Pat Durkin
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3fa4d950.02090...@posting.google.com...
> Padraig Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:<qmj9nu4tdl5ot5k93...@4ax.com>...
> > "Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I've been using Corel Draw for several years. I recently jumped
into
> > >Photoshop 7 and have been self-teaching it to myself.
> >
> > To whom else might you self-teach?
> >
> Well, isn't it himself, at all? I wonder if it's still do-it-yourself
> if you do it for somebody else?
>
> I wonder, too, why the Gaelicism "him[etc]self" doesn't have an
> analogue in Wenglish. Does the Gaelic (both mainland and Scottish)
> original have a nominative?
What, please, is mainland Gaelic? Are we back to Breton?
John Hatpin
>> The quantum physics description in the introduction to the Michael
>> Crichton novel "Timeline" made fascinating reading, and may even be
>> fairly accurate. Is this so? Any recommendations for the Next Step?
>> I'm no physicist, but an interested layman.
>>
>> Shame about the novel itself, though. Complete crap, as you'd expect.
>
>Can't comment on 'Timeline'.
>
>I'd recommend 'In Search of Schrodinger's Cat' by John Gribbin.
>
>Like I said mind boggling. I hope you find it as enjoyable as I did.
Many thanks for the recommendation. Never understood the cat-in-a-box
thing either, so maybe that's two birds and a single stone.
Padraig Breathnach
>I wonder, too, why the Gaelicism "him[etc]self" doesn't have an
>analogue in Wenglish. Does the Gaelic (both mainland and Scottish)
>original have a nominative?
>
I think you are asking the wrong question. The suffixed -self acts as
a stressor, whatever case the pronoun is. It echoes the Gaelic use of
a suffix (-se, -sean, -sa) as a stressor. There is no limitation on
using these stressors in Gaelic.
>The Welsh equivalent has to be written as
>two words, and seems to parallel present-day English in not having a
>nominative: *I myself* is *fi fy hun*. (I wish we had some real
>Welsh-speakers in this team.)
>
Irish people are far more likely to say "I myself" as a nominative,
but I have heard "myself" on a few occasions. Similarly in the second
person -- normally "you yourself", occasionally "yourself". "Himself"
and "herself" are readily accepted as nominatives.
>And there aren't any kenspeckle Scots, either,is it?
>
Perhaps lurking.
PB
Padraig Breathnach
Ireland is the mainland; Britain is an offshore island.
PB
Tony Cooper
> >> The concept may be entertaining, but it requires that a major part
of
> >> the audience attend the meeting with express purpose of being
bored.
> >
> >You've never worked for a large corporation, have you? What we have
> >here is a given.
> No, I've never worked for a large corporation, but I imagine a kind of
> conspiracy in the captive audience to openly acknowledge how boring
> the executives might be would not be looked upon benignly by those in
> charge.
Every corporate executive has at one time been a corporate minion. He
has sat through numerous meetings in Walter Mitty-like reverie acting
out a mental scenario where he takes the receptionist from his dentist's
office out and does things to her that turns her legs to jelly and
causes her eyes to roll back in her head with ecstasy. He has fiddled
and snapped thousands of rubber bands, bent and unbent paper clips into
Calder metal sculptures, doodled on countless sheets of paper, and
counted the hairs on the back of the neck of hundreds of cow-workers.
He has absorbed approximately 7.245 percent of all he's heard and seen
in a life-time of business meetings. Most of that concerns expense
account rules.
Yet, when he is promoted to management and strides to the podium some
chemical metamorphous takes place in his endocrine system that shoots a
drug to his brain that makes him think *he* is interesting and that his
subject matter spell-binding. The drug affects his eyesight and makes
him think he sees attentive people nodding in agreement at his
perception, acumen, and wit. He hears the bored shuffle of feet and rub
of squirming trouser seats against chairs and thinks it's a low rumble
of appreciation and enthusiasm. After the meeting, people tell him
"Great presentation, Joe. I never really understood the importance
correctly filling out forms B-3493 and C-1904a before." and he
*believes* it.
He is totally unaware of the pall of ennui that settles over any crowd
as any speaker stands and says "Thanks, Jack. I really appreciate the
opportunity to be here to today to provide some insight into the
importance of ............."
--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles
Tony Cooper
"Padraig Breathnach" <padr...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:qmj9nu4tdl5ot5k93...@4ax.com...
> "Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I've been using Corel Draw for several years. I recently jumped into
> >Photoshop 7 and have been self-teaching it to myself.
>
> To whom else might you self-teach?
You know, I *did* think about that wording. I rejected "I have been
self-teaching Photoshop 7..." and it doesn't sound right. I suppose "I
have been teaching myself..." sounds better. Anything I came up with
sounded odd.
Padraig Breathnach
First thing, Paul: when you quote, it is customary to indicate whose
words you are quoting.
Second, when an atom absorbs or emits a quantum packet of energy, its
state is changed; I think we have no argument on that. In at least
some cases, people use "quantum leap" in a similar sense -- a clear or
discrete change of state.
Third, you will find folks round these parts are interested in just
about everything. Some of us have heard about Schrodiger's cat. Our
interests sometimes even extend to English usage.
PB
R H Draney
>
>The analogy I've heard is as follows:
>
>Imagine a spectrum which runs from true black to true white, with an
>infinite gradation of greys in between. If one moves from black to
>white, at some point in mid-grey one has moved from "black" to "white",
>and it is almost-undetectable change which represents a quantum change.
>
>Does that sound reasonable -- as a lay analogy?
A black-and-white spectrum?...somebody catch me; I feel faint....r
CyberCypher
news:Xns927E9055...@194.168.222.8:
> On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 01:09:16 GMT, Aaron J. Dinkin wrote
>
>> On 3 Sep 2002 01:03:11 GMT, CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw>
>> wrote:
>
> -snip re: "steep learning curve"
>
>>> "steep learning curve" is now an accepted idiom that means
>>> "difficult and time consuming to learn".
>
>
>> I'm still not convinced by that. I still think that the accepted
>> idiomatic meaning of "steep learning curve" refers to things that
>> are difficult to learn because of the large amount of information
>> that must be acquired very rapidly, which is in keeping with the
>> technical sense of "learning curve".
>
>
> I find it interesting that you both agree that the popular use of
> "steep learning curve" includes the concept of difficulty.
>
> I've always taken it to mean simply that one learns a lot about
> something new -- often out of necessity -- and learns it very
> quickly. Quick learning, in depth: can be simple or difficult,
> but not slowly acquired or shallow.
I don't think it's possible to learn some things very quickly, though;
*relatively* quickly, yes. If you had an outstanding visual memory (not
photographic, though), you could probably learn how to write and read
the 3500 Chinese characters required to read a newspaper very quickly,
but you'd not be able to learn to pronounce or understand the spoken
language or read the newspaper at that level as quickly. I think the
same goes for Photoshop and Corel Draw. They have so many components to
learn that unless you were good enough at other, similar programs and
could pretty much operate those two intuitively, it would be difficult
to produce a "steep learning curve".
--
Franke: Speaker and teacher of Standard International English (SIE)
Tony Cooper
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> Well, isn't it himself, at all? I wonder if it's still do-it-yourself
> if you do it for somebody else?
>
> I wonder, too, why the Gaelicism "him[etc]self" doesn't have an
> analogue in Wenglish. Does the Gaelic (both mainland and Scottish)
> original have a nominative? The Welsh equivalent has to be written as
> two words, and seems to parallel present-day English in not having a
> nominative: *I myself* is *fi fy hun*. (I wish we had some real
> Welsh-speakers in this team.)
>
> And there aren't any kenspeckle Scots, either,is it?
I just received a flyer in the mail about the Welsh group "Crasdant" -
with Robin Huw Bowen - appearing in the area. If they are a strange as
the Welsh here.........
Skitt
> "Padraig Breathnach" wrote:
>> "Tony Cooper" wrote:
>>> I've been using Corel Draw for several years. I recently jumped
>>> into Photoshop 7 and have been self-teaching it to myself.
>>
>> To whom else might you self-teach?
>
> You know, I *did* think about that wording. I rejected "I have been
> self-teaching Photoshop 7..." and it doesn't sound right. I suppose
> "I have been teaching myself..." sounds better. Anything I came up
> with sounded odd.
Perhaps you should have been just learning.
CyberCypher
news:20020903122808...@mb-me.aol.com:
>>Subject: Re: The sign of pseudo-intellectual
>
>>When I use "extrapolate" or "parameter", I mean them in the
>>technical sense; I have no control over how other people use such
>>words, beyond breaking into fits of laughter when the intended
>>meaning is at obvious odds with what the word actually means..
>
> Agreed. I read a lot about the arts, and that's a field full of a
> certain kind of guff. I have a lovely book of Paula Rego drawings,
> for example. The commentary in the book is, unlike Rego's work,
> almost unreadably pretentious, in my opinion.
>
> "From the outset, Paula Rego's work has been shaped by a
> will-to-narrative. In keeping with the most enthralling
> storytellers, she sabotages the 'once upon a time' of conventional
> narrative temporality with a disruptive sense of the present. This
> present tense hinders the lulling potential of narrative
> 'pastness', ruffling its smooth and seamless linearity. Narrative
> is, for Paula Rego, more than the detached telling of a story: it
> is the provision of a containing environment where contradictions
> are held rather than suppressed, and where various versions of the
> self are enacted. If there is also an element of exposure and
> cleansing - part religious confessional, part psychoanalist's
> divan - in this will to narrate, it emerges not only from a
> maudlin desire for personal catharsis, but rather from a belief
> that only in the representation of certain emotional and physical
> realities (the two are inextricably linked) do those 'realities
> make any sense at all. And in making sense, signify. It is as
> though, without the mediating act of drawing, emotion returns to
> its earlier and as yet unformed, uncharted, disembodied and
> terrifying fluidity."
>
> It's all like that. To think someone (Ruth Rosengarten) got paid
> to write that.
It seems to be a given that most writers in the arts, humanities, and
social sciences use steroids when they write. They so often try to make
something out of nothing. They usually don't even have a sow's ear to
begin with. I think they are legitimately afraid that they have nothing
of interest to say about whatever it is they are discussing, so they
feel they need to throw in all that pompous, pretentious language to
impress and bamboozle the reader into thinking they are brilliant,
innovative, and insightful, and that they know what they're talking
about even if the reader doesn't. That's why I'm a technical editor and
rewriter. I wouldn't touch another English MA or PhD thesis for all the
money in Taiwan.
CyberCypher
news:TckHmyA3...@senrab.com:
> In alt.usage.english, CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote
>>Mike Barnes <mi...@senrab.com> burbled
>>news:CVxT0PAj...@senrab.com:
[...]
>>Yes, I have and earlier I posted some sites where you can actually
>>see learning curves graphed and charted and discussed.
> I stand corrected. I must admit my patience in investigating your
> links gave out after the first had no mention of "learning curve",
> the second was unavailable from the server (now seems to work OK),
> the third had no mention of "learning curve", the fourth gave a
> directory listing (which I now see was caused by a typo), and so
> on.
>
> Now that the second URL gets me somewhere and I've spotted the
> typo in the fourth URL, I see what you mean.
I posted some URLs that were just pictures of learning curves I found
on google.com--images. I tested each one before I posted it and it
worked. Not all of the text links were available, so I didn't post
them.
>>> So why does it have to be a graph? Why does the graph have to
>>> show knowledge against time? What has time got to do with it?
>>> The important features are *effort* and *achievement*, not time,
>>> surely?
>>
>>No, not surely. Mental effort takes a lot of time, unlike physical
>>effort in, say, a weight lifting contest. But you are right to say
>>that time is not always on the horizontal axis; sometimes the
>>number of tests taken has that honor against the test score
>>achieved on the vertical axis. If you look at the URLs I posted,
>>you will see that.
>>
>>"effort" is measurable by time spent practicing (and that term can
>>be applied to foreign languages, symbolic logic, calculus,
>>bowling, football, software mastery, learning the history of the
>>French Revolution, etc), so if the learning curve is physically
>>steep, then it does not require much effort (time) to acquire the
>>knowledge or skills being measured.
>
> I think you overstate the correlation between effort and time.
> Sometimes there's a close correlation, sometimes there isn't. In
> language study, for instance, practice time is all-important. But
> when learning complicated technology from an unhelpful reference
> book, the idea that all you need is lots of practice is completely
> inapplicable. In that situation, it's intense concentration and
> intellectual effort that are required. Time is involved,
> obviously, but the amount of time you spend on it does not
> correlate well with the *effort* you put into it.
True, but we must assume, for the sake of argument, that conditions are
"normal", ie that the learning materials are neither especially easy
nor especially difficult to understand for extraneous reasons like poor
writing, poor examples, and poor organization; those are all special
cases that can be dealt with in footnotes.
> And I think that when people talk of "steep learning curves",
> they're usually referring to the sort of task that is
> characterised by a need for quality, rather than quantity, of
> learning activity.
That may be, but I think one major point in this discussion of
"learning curve" is that it is used in so many different contexts to
mean different things that it has lost not only its original meaning
but also any meaning not specifically applicable to the context in
which it is used. One poster suggested that it referred to a huge
amount of material that *had to be* learned in a very short time, but
that was never the original meaning of the term; a learning curve
illustrates how much material *has been* learned in a specific period
of time, and the steeper the curve, the more material has been learned
in a short period of time; thus, the easier the material. This is only
to say that there are many different understandings of the term out
there and that it is used to mean many different things.
>>Achievement is measurable in terms of test scores. They
>>don't have to show "knowledge"; they can show skill level, eg, how
>>many balls you can juggle at one time or how many times in a row
>>you can kick a 45-yard field goal, or how many consecutive frames
>>you can throw strikes and spares, etc.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>I don't understand what your objection to "time" and "knowledge"
>>are.
>
> I don't object to them, but I did question the assumption that the
> "learning curve" normally consists of
> "capability/knowledge/learning against time". The links you posted
> have answered my doubts, to some extent. Thanks.
John Smith
> <...> Snow sublimates in sunlight into vapor without passing through the liquid phase.
> This form of sublimation can be observed on bright sunny winter days, especially for snow on a roof
> in sunlight. <...>
Also by the fact that if you hang out wet laundry in bitter, freezing
weather, it very soon gets all hard and gnarly, but it eventually gets
dry nevertheless.
\\P. Schultz