What Markov Hath Wrought
Jess Anderson
Here's a little comic relief. Today there appeared in
comp.binaries.ibm.pc a program to ingest a text file, make a
Markov probability table based on that text, and generate
new text based on the table. I brought it home and tried it
out on the file of my today's postings, which was readily
available and easy to edit, removing headers and cited
lines.
Upon reading the result, I decided it was better to post my
own parody than to let it happen by some other means. I've
edited the resulting text to about a third of its original
text, leaving paragraphs that made me laugh.
You might laugh too.
-----
While I am glad of your earlier posting, in which you based
the primary thrust of your earlier posting, in which you
based the primary thrust of your argument on freedom of
expression that can meet which objectives?
This debate must come to grips with the result that in no
case can we abridge the freedom of speech. I still think
the real essence of the various viewpoints had taken place.
I know pornography does not ineluctably produce rape, so
that statement is wrong. Likewise, I know pornography does
not ineluctably produce rape, so that statement is wrong.
Likewise, I know pornography does not ineluctably produce
rape, so that statement is wrong.
I agreed with a gun would be desirable -- but rather to
promote awareness of contrasting viewpoints and to co-exist
in some cases.
But I know pornography does not ineluctably produce rape, so
that statement is wrong. Likewise, I know pornography does
not ineluctably produce rape, so that statement is wrong.
Likewise, I know pornography does not ineluctably produce
rape, so that statement is wrong. Likewise, I know you're
mainly being funny here.
Our discussion, then, seeks to define a certain kind of
clubbing with a valid counter-argument, which is not even
well defined in such a context. All along I thought the
issue that renders it of interest. It is precisely the
inability to reach unanimity on all aspects of the various
viewpoints had taken place.
I still think the preceding discussion was anything like
that outcome (not many of us would, I guess), but I don't
think that's true in some cases.
But I must also say I find some of your remarks highly
questionable. I think that's true and I think that's true
and I think this is, in fact, the center issue of the
debate, and I was fairly sure some exposition of the debate,
and I think there was more to it than just other peoples'
intentions, in the end, if we are to curb the freedom of
speech.
I still think the preceding discussion was anything like
that outcome (not many of us would, I guess), but I don't
think that's true I don't think the preceding discussion was
anything like that outcome (not many of us would, I guess),
but I would also not be comfortable with curtailing freedoms
one whit more than a matter of "bothering" people) at the
same time as you know well, I certainly return it, I think
it's really somewhat the other way round (hatred produces
hate-filled speech and violence), such speech at least
debatable, in my opinion, what causal connections exist
between hatred and expressions of hatred, but I would also
not be comfortable with curtailing freedoms one whit more
than absolutely necessary to protect society from a small
set of terrible dangers: rapists, murderers, and a few other
kinds of real criminals.
I know you're mainly being funny here. Fine, but I don't
think either of these tests failing, with the possibility of
all three of these tests failing, with the result that in no
case can we abridge the freedom of expression for any
reason, we must have reasons that truly meet certain real
tests, not just agreeing to disagree. I did, and in
definite terms. I did.
Well, I've advanced some suggestions as to how this might be
decided. Well, that's pretty incredible, I think. Clubbing
is something done with fists, bats, 2x4s, and tire irons.
About the only kind of criminality. So far, I think there
was more to it than just other peoples' intentions, in the
discussion. It is precisely the inability to reach unanimity
on all aspects of the various viewpoints had taken place.
<> It's always easy to see both sides of an issue we're not
<> particularly concerned about.
--
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: ande...@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: ande...@yak.macc.wisc.edu Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888