Subject:
|
Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Mar 2000 06:40:55 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIENIAZEK@stopspamNOVERA.COM
|
Viewed:
|
1268 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote:
.
>
> Consider the following bits of everyday information:
>
> * Tanoy message in the subway stating that all trains westbound are delayed
> * The release date for a software package is May 2000
> * Street Preacher (Manic or not) telling you that your soul will only be saved
> by reading the good book.
> * A windows message telling you that you MUST restart windows NOW. (Again)
> * A pop star claiming he wants to fight another pop star in a live televised
> event.
> * Larry claiming that he doesn't make misteaks.
> * A news report claiming that Dictator W is torturing X people in country Y,
> during recent conflict Z.
>
> My challenge for you is to reorder this list, so that the bit of information
> that should be considered the most accurate comes first, and the least accurate
> comes last.
>
> Then put in a dividing line between useful information and useless information.
Interesting. Can you do one dividing line? That is, if you sort by
accuracy, do you get a crisp place to divide, or is "usefulness" a
different sort key?
I think it is. For example:
I'd posit (for the sane of argument) that
> * Larry claiming that he doesn't make misteaks.
goes to the top of the list. It is 100% true, you can bank on it, it's a
postulate. However it's not particularly useful, because; everybody
knows it, and; it's not a very good predictor of important things (well,
important to me but not to the 3000 other subway riders who want to go
westbound)
Now, if the "westbound trains are delayed" is 90% likely to be an
accurate annoucement, it goes below my "revealed truth" in the accuracy
sort, but above it in usefulness as 3001 subway riders want to know. :-)
--
Larry Pieniazek - lpieniazek@mercator.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
