Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (
More info?)
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 21:34:44 +0000 (UTC), newsREMOVE@THISmegazone.org
(MegaZone) wrote:
>Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> shaped the electrons to say:
>>Realize that "convention" is really useless as a way of making
>>decisions. It has nothing to do with the desirability of any method,
>>just that others are using it. Note that they're probably making thier
>>decisions the same way (using an excuse to get out of thinking).
>
>Are you a solipsist?
The position of solipsism is impossible to defend (although I'm not
getting into a discussion about that here). I just don't listen to
b*llsh*t and treat it as if it represents something in the real world.
> Convention is a part of life, it dictates
>language and the meaning of words.
It doesn't take much thought to see the problem there. You're dealing
with "circular" reasoning, which is invalid in the same way you can't
get to the moon by bending over any pulling up on your shoes. Here:
1. People's behavior depends on convention.
2. Convention depends on people's behavior (which depends on
convention).
3. People's behavior depends on convention (which depends on people's
behavior, which depends on convention)
and so on, without end.
Notice that the real world isn't involved in that anywhere.
> If I call what everyone else calls
>an 'apple' an 'orange' I'm breaking convention. There is nothing
>inate about the object that makes its name 'apple' (obviously it isn't
>called that in every language) - it is just convention in the English
>speaking world that that is the proper name for tat fruit.
>
Note that a convertion to call something an "orange" in no way
indicates that "orange" is the best word for it. Anyway, communication
tools (which depend on common knowledge, more than anything else) are
quite different for other things. Still, there ARE changes to language
(see below about changes). One is "hiccup", which used to be spelled
in a non-intuitive way (looked like it had "cough" in it).
>Convention is *vitally* important to developers, especially UI
>developers. You want the UI to do what the majority of people expect
>- ie, you want to follow convention.
>
But, in NO CASE, is a suitable excuse to get out of thinking.
Conventions are frequently changed, this can happen because a few
people aren't slaves, and can recognize a better way.
What I was doing (when discussing priorities) was original thought,
something even more vital than convention.
>>Again, no valid reason, just mindless imitation. Forget about the
>>others. What system makes more sense to YOU?
>
>Lover numbers come first makes more sense to me if you're talking a
>priority list.
Notice that I never argued about THAT. I just stated that people are
different.
> Something having a 'higher priority' means it is
>higher on a list, a lower number on a numbered list. Logical.
>
Which is still not OBVIOUS to eveyone. I think of the numbers first
(rather than the physical position in certain lists).
BTW, that's not usually "number" (an idea), but "numeral" (a written
representation). I learned that in about 4th grade. I suppose you did
too.
>Higher numbers come first makes more sense to me if you're talking a
>weighting system.
>Giving something more weight means favoring that
>item, also logical.
>
And it would also be logical, that if you assigned numbers to weights,
to use a higher number for something with a higher weight.
Notice that that's the same thing I was doing with priorities (which,
at least in this case, represent the same thing like the numerals "4"
"004.000" and "2+2" all represent the same number.
>>Notice that I'm not saying that any one system is any better than the
>>other, just that that "others do it" reasoning is inappropriate.
>
>I'm not either.
And what I'm saying about "weights" and "priorities" being the same
thing, isn't disagreeing with you either.
> I'm saying that it seems the coders at RTV intended
>it to be a priority numbering scheme, but you're thinking of it as a
>weighting scheme.
And I thought that didn't make sense, because they're referring to the
same thing.
> In that case the numbers would look complete
>backwards.
>
>>>So DVA presents it as a weighting and not a priority.
>>There's a problem here. By using 2 different words, you're making it
>>sound like 2 different things. If's obviously the SAME thing, just
>>presented differently.
>
>No, it is obviously NOT the same thing - they are two *different
>methods* to accomplish the same end goal.
They are not "two *different methods* to accomplish the same end
goal.", they are two different methods to EXPLAIN it (if even that).
I wouldn't know the actual algorythm Replay uses to determine what to
record, but it could look something like this:
show_to_record=0 ;record nothing
for show= 1 to number_channels
if channel.number > show_to_record then show_to_record=channel.number
next show
In case, you can understand those things. "number" here could be
called either "weight" or "priority", with no significant effect on
the algorithm.
> I can drive to Florida or I
>can fly to Florida - they're not the same mode of transportation, but
>they'll both accomplish the goal of getting me there. Lumping them
>together and saying driving and flying are the same thing because
>they're both 'travel' would be obscuring things.
>
Notice it depends on what word you're using. Of course, "flying" and
"driving" are different things. The phrase "going to florida" would
describe either.
>Priorities and weightings are both methods to resolve conflicts or to
>order tasks.
Is it possible for you to describe both methods and still produce two
fundamentally different explanations?
> So, yes, they accomplish the same end goals - but
>they're two ways to go about doing so and they have distinct
>differences.
>
Notice you haven't said anything about the differences themselves (now
that reminds me of some other BS).
>>Consider the (non-)differences between "Bathroom Tissue", "Toilet
>>Paper", and "A**wipers".
>
>This metaphor doesn't align with the issue. Bathroom Tissue and
>Toilet Paper are the same thing - two names for one object.
I gave 2 names. You don't have to repeat the 3rd one, but it does
exist.
> You could
>say that priorities and an order list are two names for the same
>thing, but weighting isn't the same.
>
I'd like to know how they're different.
>Priorities and Weighting are like Toiler Paper and Baby Wipes - they
>can both clean your ass, but they aren't the same thing.
>
But are very similar in the ways that count.
>http
/dictionary.reference.com/search?q=priority
>http
/dictionary.reference.com/search?q=weighting
>
It was highly unlikely that dictionary definitions would help here,
but I read them anyway, and they didn't. What I needed was
confirmation that these are 2 DIFFERENT procedures. If you actually
KNOW they are different, you have that information.
>>>It is certainly the least confusing. The priority manager is
>>>presented as a list, and you can move shows up/down the list. You
>>>don't have to set numbers on things.
>>
>>That does sound like a good idea.
>>
>>> The show at the top of the list
>>>(#1) has the higher priority, etc.
>>
>>Notice that you're putting numbers back in, after stating the
>>advantage of not using them.
>
>I'm not putting them back in - they're on the screen. Here's one
>screenshot:
>http
/www.lasplash.com/artman/uploads/seasonpassmgr_full.jpg
>
Sorry for that mistake (currently ignoring the distinction between
numbers and numerals, I don't always say but it helps to know what
you're thinking about anyway). I see I misunderstood your description.
>From this page:
>http
/www.lasplash.com/TechTalk/To_TiVo_or_not_to_TiVo_That_is_the_question_.php
>
>(Found it with Google...)
>
>-MZ, RHCE #806199299900541, ex-CISSP #3762
--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http/notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."
/www.lasplash.com/artman/uploads/seasonpassmgr_full.jpg
Facebook
Twitter