bullshit generator
B Briggs
invented for financial pipsqueak.
http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html
Barbara
Mark Barratt
wrote:
>Here is a handy tool for generating technobabble. We need to have one
>invented for financial pipsqueak.
>
>http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html
I wrote a similar "bullshit generator" when I was unlucky enough to be
subjected to a course in "Business Management" at university 8 years
ago, and there are much better ones than this out there on the web, if
you'd care to look. The sad thing is, the people that they're aimed at
are quite impervious to the humour of such programs because they're
all of the firm belief that words have no intrinsic meaning anyway,
and are just tools for persuading people to buy your ideas/products.
The even sadder thing is that they may be right.
Gary G. Taylor
wrote:
>Here is a handy tool for generating technobabble. We need to have one
You remind me of two things here:
1. There is a program called "Travesty," which is a text munger. You
feed it a block of veribiage and it randomly rearranges, duplicates,
and otherwise screws up the text to whatever extent you wish. It is
particularly effective on such things as corporate policy statements,
insurance policies, and the like.
2. The old "After Dark" screensaver for the Windows 3 platform had a
thingy called "Graphstat." When this screensaver activated, it would
draw a graph of some sort on the screen and label same with a phrase.
The phrase was generated from a text file containing four sections
separated by blank lines, e.g.:
Normalized
Prorated [etc]
first-level
second-level
undifferentiated [etc]
system performance
drift rate
consanguinity level
(MG*2)
(MHz)
The elements in the fourth section would appear only occasionally in
the final phrase. The beauty of this thing was that one could put
one's own words into the text file. With the right choice of words, it
could produce some transcendental silliness. Unfortunately it doesn't
work on the newer-generation Windows systems; I should write one....
--
Gary G. Taylor * Rialto, CA
geetee at pacbell dot net
www dot geetee dot cdfound dot org
I REPORT ***ALL*** SPAM!
"The two most abundant things in the Universe are
hydrogen and stupidity." --Harlan Ellison
www dot geetee dot cdfound dot org
Maria Conlon
I think I want to "embrace next-generation experiences" -- but only if I
can have the stamina of the next generation.
Maria
Maria Conlon
> B Briggs wrote:
>
>> Here is a handy tool for generating technobabble. We need to have
>> one invented for financial pipsqueak.
>>
>> http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html
>
> I wrote a similar "bullshit generator" when I was unlucky enough to be
> subjected to a course in "Business Management" at university 8 years
> ago, and there are much better ones than this out there on the web, if
> you'd care to look. The sad thing is, the people that they're aimed at
> are quite impervious to the humour of such programs because they're
> all of the firm belief that words have no intrinsic meaning anyway,
> and are just tools for persuading people to buy your ideas/products.
Some of them are not only impervious to the humor, they are impervious
to any helpful suggestions about what the words they're using generally
mean.
And what really rots your socks is that many of these jive hucksters are
in positions where they can do exactly what they want, with no one to
tell them No.
> The even sadder thing is that they may be right.
I don't want to think about that. They *can't* be right! Life *cannot*
be that cruel!
Maria
Peter Moylan
I'm off-line now, so can't look at the one that Barbara mentioned,
but from Mark's comments I can guess what it's like. I too once wrote
such a generator. The best part is that I managed to get some
practical use out of it. I was sent a book to review, and it was
full of that sort of bullshit, so I took a few phrases from the book,
fed them into my bullshit generator, and used that to write the review.
Several of my colleagues felt that it was a very apt summary of the
book (without realising that it was machine-generated, although
they did realise that it was a sarcastic review).
On the negative side, I'm sorry to say that that particular publisher
has not since asked me to review another book.
Just recently I was asked to be an expert witness in a murder
trial, and from the material that the lawyers sent me I was sorely
tempted ... but it was after all a murder trial, so in the end
I overcame the temptation and played it straight. I have since
been told that my testimony helped to get the accused acquitted,
but I still don't have enough knowledge of the case to know
whether that was a good or bad thing.
I've been tempted to use it for a research funding application,
but so far have lacked the courage to do that. The only other
practical use I've made of it was when our university administration
wanted a response for its quality assurance program. I don't
feel guilty about that, because QA surveys are typically set up
in such a way that it's quite impossible to come up with
non-bullshit responses.
We've recently been subjected to a national Quality Assessment,
whatever that means. I took the opportunity to put a Dilbert
cartoon about 'qualicide' on the notice board, but I didn't get
to find out whether the assessors saw it.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au
B Briggs
"Maria Conlon" <mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:aoqqfp$opa3i$1...@ID-113669.news.dfncis.de...
Terms like: facilitate next-generation portals and revolutionize dot-com
synergies (generated by the link above) were, and are still, common in the
IPO disclosures and annual reports of various failed and failing companies.
I would read that junk and decide that if the companies couldn't make clear
exactly what the heck they do, then their stock wasn't worth consideration.
John Seeliger
news:ur2n0bq...@corp.supernews.com...
Would you invest in a company whose mission statement was "matrix sexy
convergence"?
I am so glad Dogbert Consulting is so busy. Look at what I came up with:
maximize proactive channels
expedite mission-critical e-markets
enhance distributed technologies
engage impactful networks
utilize revolutionary experiences
engineer front-end web-readiness
integrate proactive web-readiness
transform web-enabled mindshare
repurpose world-class paradigms
utilize value-added initiatives
unleash ubiquitous deliverables
I recall outside the Joint Council of Student Engineers (JCSE)'s office at
UTA, there was one of those whiteboard calendars and there was a place with
a section called "Things to Do" and someone had written:
1. Plan the Coup
2. Overthrow the government
3. Install puppet regime
(For all of you Bush-haters, this was long before GWB became President.)
My own theory on things to do is:
1. Tunnel to the center of the Earth.
2. Capture the King Mole
I might add, build a computer to control the Earth's rotation, but that is a
new action item I just thought of.
"There are no earthquakes in California. Those are underground explosions.
The government tunneling to the center of the Earth to build a computer to
control the Earth's rotation... I'm surprised I'm the only one who's heard
of this." -Cliff Clavin, final episode of _Cheers_.
--
John Seeliger Limited but increasing content
jsee...@yahoo.com <http://www.freewebz.com/hudathunkett/>
jsee...@aaahawk.com
Ray Heindl
> And what really rots your socks....
That phrase takes me back to my first real boss, in the early '80s. He
dressed like a throwback to the '60s, with white shirts, narrow ties
and a crewcut, and used a lot of phrases I'd never heard elsewhere, the
most memorable being "rot your socks". Apparently it's still used in
Australia, according to
<http://www.artistwd.com/joyzine/australia/strine/r.htm>. Is it common
elsewhere? I'm sure I haven't heard it in the last 20 years.
--
Ray Heindl
J. J. Lodder
> Here is a handy tool for generating technobabble. We need to have one
> invented for financial pipsqueak.
It is not too hard to convert it to any kind of babble.
For example, a Kant generator has been around for years,
Jan
B Briggs
"John Seeliger" <jsee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aosbp5$pjsh5$1...@ID-146094.news.dfncis.de...
> "B Briggs" <theb...@citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ur2n0bq...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Maria Conlon" <mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> > news:aoqqfp$opa3i$1...@ID-113669.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > >
> > > B Briggs wrote:
> > > > Here is a handy tool for generating technobabble. We need to have
one
> > > > invented for financial pipsqueak.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html
> > > >
> > > > Barbara
> > >
> > > I think I want to "embrace next-generation experiences" -- but only if
I
> > > can have the stamina of the next generation.
> > >
> >
> > Terms like: facilitate next-generation portals and revolutionize dot-com
> > synergies (generated by the link above) were, and are still, common in
the
> > IPO disclosures and annual reports of various failed and failing
> companies.
> > I would read that junk and decide that if the companies couldn't make
> clear
> > exactly what the heck they do, then their stock wasn't worth
> consideration.
>
> Would you invest in a company whose mission statement was "matrix sexy
> convergence"?
I don't know. It might require some hands on research :-)
Mark Barratt
Thanks for letting us know about it, Jan.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Some of them are not only impervious to the humor, they are impervious
>to any helpful suggestions about what the words they're using generally
>mean.
>
>And what really rots your socks is that many of these jive hucksters are
>in positions where they can do exactly what they want, with no one to
>tell them No.
After having to edit a series of cliché-ridden theological texts, I wrote a
theological one, and suggested that the authors use it to save trouble. It's
still on my hard disk somewhere.
--
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
J. J. Lodder
OK, you get what you deserve,
Jan
--
As is evident upon close examination, there can be no doubt that
philosophy constitutes the whole content for the objects in space and
time; however, philosophy, still, can never furnish a true and
demonstrated science, because, like philosophy, it teaches us nothing
whatsoever regarding the content of inductive principles. There can be
no doubt that, in the full sense of these terms, the objects in space
and time can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science,
because, like philosophy, they would thereby be made to contradict
disjunctive principles, yet the phenomena (and it must not be supposed
that this is the case) are the clue to the discovery of the Antinomies.
As any dedicated reader can clearly see, it must not be supposed that,
then, necessity is a representation of, so regarded, the manifold, and
the employment of the noumena, so regarded, would be falsified. It is
obvious that, so regarded, our understanding, indeed, can be treated
like the empirical objects in space and time. As any dedicated reader
can clearly see, it remains a mystery why the practical employment of
the transcendental aesthetic is what first gives rise to the paralogisms
of practical reason. The noumena can not take account of natural
reason, because of the relation between our knowledge and the
paralogisms of pure reason.
Thus, space, even as this relates to the employment of the
phenomena, has nothing to do with the Categories, as is shown in the
writings of Hume. As is evident upon close examination, the thing in
itself is the key to understanding the discipline of human reason.
Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, what we have alone
been able to show is that time would thereby be made to contradict the
Antinomies; with the sole exception of our understanding, the thing in
itself can thereby determine in its totality the Categories. Since
knowledge of our ideas is a priori, the discipline of natural reason is
a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of it must be known a
posteriori. In which of our cognitive faculties are the intelligible
objects in space and time and the discipline of practical reason
connected together? Time is the key to understanding our concepts;
therefore, general logic (and it must not be supposed that this is true)
can not take account of the Antinomies. As is evident upon close
examination, the paralogisms have lying before them our judgements. Let
us apply this to the transcendental unity of apperception.
The reader should be careful to observe that, then, space is what
first gives rise to, consequently, space, yet the Antinomies, with the
sole exception of the discipline of practical reason, are the mere
results of the power of our understanding, a blind but indispensable
function of the soul. As will easily be shown in the next section,
there can be no doubt that, in respect of the intelligible character,
the discipline of natural reason can be treated like the thing in
itself, and the thing in itself is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and
none of it must be known a priori. The things in themselves stand in
need to the paralogisms. As is evident upon close examination, it is
obvious that the Categories can never, as a whole, furnish a true and
demonstrated science, because, like our a priori knowledge, they prove
the validity of deductive principles; in the case of the transcendental
unity of apperception, the manifold is what first gives rise to, on the
contrary, our judgements. By means of space, we can deduce that the
phenomena have nothing to do with time. As is evident upon close
examination, the Antinomies are by their very nature contradictory.
On the other hand, the Transcendental Deduction, in the study of
the Ideal of pure reason, abstracts from all content of a posteriori
knowledge, by virtue of human reason. Our a priori concepts abstract
from all content of a posteriori knowledge. The noumena (and it is not
at all certain that this is the case) are what first give rise to the
never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions; therefore,
the employment of necessity, thus, would be falsified. As I have
elsewhere shown, our faculties exclude the possibility of, consequently,
the architectonic of natural reason, as is proven in the ontological
manuals. Necessity, in the study of time, can be treated like the
transcendental unity of apperception. To avoid all misapprehension, it
is necessary to explain that our ideas are just as necessary as the
objects in space and time; for these reasons, the phenomena (and I
assert that this is the case) are what first give rise to the
transcendental unity of apperception.
The Categories are the mere results of the power of our knowledge,
a blind but indispensable function of the soul. Our experience is the
clue to the discovery of, irrespective of all empirical conditions,
necessity. The Categories should only be used as a canon for the Ideal
of pure reason; therefore, our inductive judgements can never, as a
whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the
manifold, they constitute the whole content for problematic principles.
The empirical objects in space and time are what first give rise to our
sense perceptions. Therefore, our ideas are just as necessary as our
judgements, by means of analysis.
Since some of the phenomena are speculative, human reason
constitutes the whole content for, in the study of the Ideal of pure
reason, the Ideal of natural reason. As is evident upon close
examination, it remains a mystery why, irrespective of all empirical
conditions, our deductive judgements can not take account of the thing
in itself, yet metaphysics may not contradict itself, but it is still
possible that it may be in contradiction with our faculties. The
discipline of pure reason is by its very nature contradictory; thus, the
phenomena (and I assert, therefore, that this is the case) are a
representation of the Antinomies. Our judgements would thereby be made
to contradict natural causes, since all of the Categories are
problematic. (As any dedicated reader can clearly see, there can be no
doubt that our concepts would be falsified.) Our knowledge can thereby
determine in its totality the Antinomies. The things in themselves are
just as necessary as the Ideal.
John Lawler
>Mark Barratt <ma...@totally-official.com> writes:
>>nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
>> >B Briggs <theb...@citlink.net> writes:
>> >> Here is a handy tool for generating technobabble. We need to have one
>> >> invented for financial pipsqueak.
>> >It is not too hard to convert it to any kind of babble.
>> >For example, a Kant generator has been around for years,
>> Thanks for letting us know about it, Jan.
>OK, you get what you deserve,
[several lengthy paragraphs high-quality of Kant-cant snipped]
Got a URL for this, Jan?
I'd like to link it from the Chomskybot, who responds:
From C1, it follows that any associated supporting element is,
apparently, determined by a descriptive fact. On the other hand, the
theory of syntactic features developed earlier does not affect the
structure of the traditional practice of grammarians. It must be
emphasized, once again, that the natural general principle that will
subsume this case cannot be arbitrary in a parasitic gap construction. If
the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to
movement, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort can be defined
in such a way as to impose the requirement that branching is not tolerated
within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.
Analogously, the natural general principle that will subsume this case
is rather different from an important distinction in language use. This
suggests that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite
independent grounds is not subject to the extended c-command discussed in
connection with (34). Suppose, for instance, that the speaker-hearer's
linguistic intuition is not quite equivalent to nondistinctness in the
sense of distinctive feature theory. Thus the earlier discussion of
deviance is, apparently, determined by a parasitic gap construction. On
our assumptions, any associated supporting element does not affect the
structure of the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the
dominance scope of a complex symbol.
It must be emphasized, once again, that the notion of level of
grammaticalness can be defined in such a way as to impose a general
convention regarding the forms of the grammar. Clearly, a descriptively
adequate grammar is not subject to the requirement that branching is not
tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. On our
assumptions, any associated supporting element is not quite equivalent to
the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. So far, the descriptive
power of the base component cannot be arbitrary in the levels of
acceptability from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual gibberish (eg (98d)).
Let us continue to suppose that a case of semigrammaticalness of a
different sort does not affect the structure of irrelevant intervening
contexts in selectional rules.
Cf http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler U Michigan Linguistics Dept
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Once you have the cap and gown all you need do is open your mouth. What-
ever nonsense you talk becomes wisdom and all the rubbish, good sense."
-- Moliere
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder writes:
> >Mark Barratt <ma...@totally-official.com> writes:
> >>nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
> >> >B Briggs <theb...@citlink.net> writes:
>
> >> >> Here is a handy tool for generating technobabble. We need to have one
> >> >> invented for financial pipsqueak.
>
> >> >It is not too hard to convert it to any kind of babble.
>
> >> >For example, a Kant generator has been around for years,
>
> >> Thanks for letting us know about it, Jan.
>
> >OK, you get what you deserve,
>
> [several lengthy paragraphs high-quality of Kant-cant snipped]
Indeed,
it is always surprising how far a context-free grammar will take you.
> Got a URL for this, Jan?
> I'd like to link it from the Chomskybot, who responds:
snip
The version I have
Kant Generator Pro (1995) comes from the info-mac archives,
complete with free source code.
It should still be there.
The author was then at www.netaxs.com (unverified)
Some searching might yield a more recent version,
Jan
Phil Carmody
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 01:41:06 -0400, "Maria Conlon" <mcon...@sprynet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Some of them are not only impervious to the humor, they are impervious
>>to any helpful suggestions about what the words they're using generally
>>mean.
>>
>>And what really rots your socks is that many of these jive hucksters are
>>in positions where they can do exactly what they want, with no one to
>>tell them No.
>
> After having to edit a series of cliché-ridden theological texts, I wrote a
> theological one, and suggested that the authors use it to save trouble. It's
> still on my hard disk somewhere.
That sounds divine - how hard would it be to retrieve it?
(Though a mathematician, I have a curiously disproportionate number of
theologian friends who I think would like it.)
Phil
Steve Hayes
Maybe I'll have to see if I can find the source code and try to update it.
Unfortunmately it's a DOS program written in Turbo Basic, and Win95 doesn't
like it - lacks the DOS PRINT command.