EPTOn September 18 2015 21:49 Acrofales wrote:
Go and read Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson.
Go and read Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson.
This is really good advice to anyone ever
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 345
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
This is really good advice to anyone ever | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 18 2015 22:17 Sent. wrote: No I mean who's legally responsible. If he modified his robot then we can't blame the manufacturer. If it's not big enough to be noticed then we can blame the owner or the manufacturer because it's sort of dangerous for pedestrians. If the kid wasn't properly supervised we can blame his parent/babysitter. We can't sue God so he's safe this time. Even with all that its hardly liable. If a kid trips and gets hit by a car--the only person of interest is the car. If an object with groceries on top of it that travels a predetermined path regularly enough to have a routine gets run into by an unsupervised kid--that is an accident. It is the drivers fault for not paying attention to the road. | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
Which one of the following should considered to be part of X? b/c I would have doubled the "be" to "...should be considered to be part of . . ."? | ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
On September 21 2015 17:24 Hryul wrote: So I'm doing an online tutorial and I'm asking myself: Is the following grammatically correct? b/c I would have doubled the "be" to "...should be considered to be part of . . ."? My hear tells me 'Which one of the following should be considered part of X?' But wait for native speakers' answers. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On September 21 2015 17:24 Hryul wrote: So I'm doing an online tutorial and I'm asking myself: Is the following grammatically correct? b/c I would have doubled the "be" to "...should be considered to be part of . . ."? "...should be considered You can do this as well if you move the verb as you did. I think the extra infinitive for, " to be, " stiffens it a bit but I wouldn't dwell on it as a native speaker. | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On September 21 2015 20:16 ThomasjServo wrote: "...should be considered You can do this as well if you move the verb as you did. I think the extra infinitive for, " to be, " stiffens it a bit but I wouldn't dwell on it as a native speaker. so the answer is 'yes, but stiff'. I still can't wrap my head around it though. (I saw that I was proposing a future construction, which isn't right on a multiple choice answer.) | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On September 21 2015 22:42 Hryul wrote: so the answer is 'yes, but stiff'. I still can't wrap my head around it though. (I saw that I was proposing a future construction, which isn't right on a multiple choice answer.) Do you remember the full question? It may help me sort it all out. | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On September 21 2015 22:44 ThomasjServo wrote: Do you remember the full question? It may help me sort it all out. It is the full question. Following is a list of 9 answers of which I must choose one. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On September 21 2015 22:49 Hryul wrote: It is the full question. Following is a list of 9 answers of which I must choose one. You just had to correctly format that sentence? No specifics as to tense or other qualifiers? | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18291 Posts
"Which one of the following items is part of X?" Shorter, grammatically less garbled (you were right in assuming a "be" was missing in the original phrase), more direct, and less prone to confusion. You should suggest "The Elements of Style" by William Strunk to whoever wrote that test 😉 | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On September 21 2015 23:50 Acrofales wrote: Honestly, the whole phrase is needlessly convoluted. Here's how I would write it: "Which one of the following items is part of X?" Shorter, grammatically less garbled (you were right in assuming a "be" was missing in the original phrase), more direct, and less prone to confusion. You should suggest "The Elements of Style" by William Strunk to whoever wrote that test 😉 Bringing me back to English 101 freshman year of college. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
 | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On September 22 2015 00:47 farvacola wrote: Thank God for AP credit I had AP European History, and Calc. The people in AP English classes in my high school were... not pleasant to be around in class. I opted to mire through every tired theme and thinly applied analogy in Things Fall Apart instead with the majority of our class. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On September 18 2015 14:26 whatisthisasheep wrote: Is the story of Cain and Abel a forgery of Seth an Osiris? If so, isn't the story of Isis giving a virgin birth to Horus the basis for the story of Mary giving a virgin birth to Jesus? I think the word "forgery" means something different than you think. Yes, intellectual history involves a lot of homages, dialogues, and literary plays on ideas/stories. But Noah's Ark isn't a "forgery" of anything... it's a Hebrew literary device for distinguishing their religion from other religions around them (read Utnapishtim and Noah side by side and notice the ways in which it becomes more about ethics, etc.). Horus wasn't a "virgin birth." His widowed mother (most def not a virgin) fucked his dad's totemic dead dick. Not exactly normal reproduction, but hardly "virgin birth." The birth of Christ to a virgin is about Christ's immunity from original sin, a particular theological solution to a theological problem. But yes, things echo each other. That's how ideas develop and form. Literature works this way, so too do philosophy and religion. | ||
|
Cazimirbzh
334 Posts
A meme ? Sort of social mimicry ? Like esope and moliere ? Noah's Ark is the meme of Gilgamesh's flood(babylonian) http://www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh/ However for cain and abel and for mary, it's a too common meme to link directly the two of them to egyptian mythology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births. Bad son vs good son, bad killed good, splitting the world/time. Chinese, shun and yao. Romulus and remus, roman. etheocles and polynices, greek. Mufasa and scar, disney. philosophy doesnt work that way^^ | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On September 18 2015 11:21 Acrofales wrote: More important, if you´re in the US, does this robot have second amendment rights and could you send him out to by groceries armed with an AK47? Robots aren't people, and don't have second amendment rights. But what about a corporation formed of robots? | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On September 22 2015 03:00 Cazimirbzh wrote: @whatisthisasheep and @Yoav A meme ? Sort of social mimicry ? Like esope and moliere ? Noah's Ark is the meme of Gilgamesh's flood(babylonian) http://www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh/ However for cain and abel and for mary, it's a too common meme to link directly the two of them to egyptian mythology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births. Bad son vs good son, bad killed good, splitting the world/time. Chinese, shun and yao. Romulus and remus, roman. etheocles and polynices, greek. Mufasa and scar, disney. philosophy doesnt work that way^^ The language of memes works. It's imprecise, but gets the idea across. Really, a better was to talk about it is in terms of common problems. Resurrection/ascension/rebirth stories deal with the problem of death. This is a common human problem, and we should expect treatments of it to be common. And yes, this does happen in philosophy. Echoes of ideas, sometimes conscious and sometimes not, are very common. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18291 Posts
On September 22 2015 08:41 Yoav wrote: The language of memes works. It's imprecise, but gets the idea across. Really, a better was to talk about it is in terms of common problems. Resurrection/ascension/rebirth stories deal with the problem of death. This is a common human problem, and we should expect treatments of it to be common. And yes, this does happen in philosophy. Echoes of ideas, sometimes conscious and sometimes not, are very common. I don't think it is fair at all to say that philosophers "echo" each others' ideas, unless you are talking about western and eastern philosophies having sometimes similar ideas without actually being in each others' sphere of influence. However, if you are talking about western philosophy only, then I don't think echoing is the right word at all. Every generation read the works of previous generations. So in that sense, idealism can be traced back to Plato, and if you feel like being a dick about it, you could even say that the idea has not really evolved in the last 3000 years. However, that is a horribly simplified way of looking at it, because in the millenia-long discussion that started between Plato and Aristotle and still has not ended, people disagreed, and came up with ingenious arguments against every single previous explanation. And philosophy moved forward as a discipline by showing how such arguments could be resolved, fully cognizant that they were only building upon the ideas of thinkers who had come before. | ||
|
whatisthisasheep
624 Posts
| ||
| ||
