I’ve been very, very bad at keeping up with all the carnivals, so here’s a quick roundup.
- Carnival of the Liberals #15
- I and the Bird #26
- Carnival of Education #72
- Skeptics’ Circle #37
- Carnival of Feminists #17
- Circus of the Spineless seeks submissions!
As usual, talk about whatever you want in the comments (at last, a place where the Coulter defenders can be evasive with permission!)
This isn’t going to become an Opera post is it?
Maybe I can pre-empt it and start a conversation about D&D.
What characters do you think PZ typically plays? Is he a sneaky rogue, a dumb fighter, or my guess, a wizard?
I’m thinking he values intelligence in his characters, although he may be a rule nazi who has already performed the calculations to determine the optimal mathmatical advantage (I have a guy in my group who does this).
Make that:
…although he may be a rule nazi who has already performed the calculations to determine the correct race and classes to obtain the optimal mathmatical advantage (I have a guy in my group who does this).
Several weeks ago, I had an argument with a particularly hysterical feminist who insisted that abhorrent traditions like circumcision were things that were forced upon women by patriarchial and controlling males. I do believe that the argument was at this blog.
I’d like that feminist to read and explain the following article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5109094.stm
It’s long past time that we acknowledged that barbarism is often something that people impose upon themselves and their own sociocultural group, and that a thing that a group accepts can still be barbarism.
I haven’t played D&D in 25 years. I did have the original rules — those little beige books — and may still have them in a box somewhere around here. My son Alaric would know, since he’s become a collector.
I did prefer playing magic-users and thieves (I remember when thieves were added as a class, which really dates me; rogues and those strange multi-class characters came along later), and I was the opposite of a rules lawyer. I liked playing characters with serious shortcomings in the stats and abilities department.
I still have the original books and a copy of “Keep on the Borderland” somewhere too, and I have my original dice in a bag with the newer ones.
It’s good to see someone else passing on the D&D’ing to the next generation (My son and several nephews play).
You can keep up with the science carnivals at this link and also get to listings for other carnivals from there.
Shameless plug – those of us over at Nodalpoint are starting up a new bioinformatics/computational biology carnival named Bio::Blogs – first edition due July 1.
I’m glad I’ve started contributing to the Skeptics’ Circle. Managed to cover multiple posts in my Doggerel Index. There always seems to be one more woo cliche I need to get around to covering.
D&D: I tend to favor magic users as well, and need to try out more martial characters. One thing I’m going to try is going against type: Favorite character: Chaotic good, secular sorcerer, Int 16, Wis 8, Cha 18 (before stat boosters). New character I’m going to try: Lawful neutral theocratic monk (martial artist), Int 9, Wis 15, Cha 6.
D20’s cause impotence.
We let a D&D kid play in our game, aeons ago when Carter was still President. Did you know that at 12th level Elvish Mage vaporizes when hit by a FGMP-14 round at extreme range?
Just Travellin’ along.
James 2:24
I suspect Caledonian is referring to me here.
As difficult as it is to resist such a gracious invitation from someone who consistently shows such respect for other commenters, is clearly firmly grounded in reality-based categories, and who absolutely never cherry-picks data to support his arguments, I think I’ll spend my time working on my dissertation and conference papers instead.
Speaking of my dissertation, in it I want to refer to a couple of linguistic concepts I studied many years ago, in order to create a framework for comparative anatomical queries in an information system. But my exposure to linguistics is superficial and out-of-date, so I’d like to verify that I’m making correct use of these ideas–or scrap them, if I’m not.
I know that there are people here who are well-versed in linguistics, and as a non-specialist, I’d like to get your informal take on the following two questions:
1) Is “deep structure” as posited by Chomsky a generally well-accepted idea, or it is controversial or even discredited in the linguistics community?
2) The AI community has adopted Ogden and Nash’s Semantic Triangle of the elements of meaning–again, in the linguistic community, how well is this construct regarded?
Thanks in advance!
What? More opera? (I didn’t think so.)
The new Skeptics’ Circle is being hosted in the midst of the Bermuda Triangle, a rather unlikely venue. I contributed my dishing of Dan Brown’s credulous parroting of the supposedly awesome significance of the golden ratio, phi. (The Da Vinci Code manages to be so sloppy about so many things.) I also confessed my secret shame: according to the golden ratio, my navel is in the wrong place!
I’d say somewhere between controversial and discredited, depending on which version of “Deep Structure” you mean.
Even Chomsky ditched his original conception of Deep Structure, many years ago. In that version of his theory, he started calling the new replacement “DS” but saying it didn’t stand for “Deep Structure,” which had too much baggage.
You might check out The Linguistics Wars (not to be confused with The Language Wars). Among other things, it talks about Chomsky’s various major revisions of his theory over the years, in a pretty accessible way.
IIRC one of the issues is whether to expect a canonical form at the DS level (or even at ANY level) or some much weaker constraints or tendencies.
I don’t know about Ogden and Nash and the semantic triangle, though maybe I should. (Does that have anything to do with allegedly humorous semantic constructs in Ogden Nash poetry?)
Thanks, Paul–that’s *exactly* the kind of feedback I was looking for!
While I didn’t want to go back and study a whole new field de novo just to put it in the proper context, the book you recommend sounds quite accessible, and I will check it out.
I had *not* had enough caffeine when I wrote that, but the consequent brain fart I experienced is too funny–I don’t remember when the last time I had occasion to think of Ogden Nash. I wonder why that came out in my comment?
I *meant* to write “Ogden and Richards”–basically, they postulated three elements of meaning which interact: concept (mental idea of the thing), term (string we use to describe the thing), and referent (the thing itself).
In my particular small domain of weak AI, we use it all the time, but since I’m finding that our definition of “ontology” seems to irritate philosophers I’ve talked to, I wanted to make sure that our adoption of an early-20th century semantic construct doesn’t rub linguists the wrong way. Or that, if it does, I address that limitation.
How gracious of you to take time out from your work to reply, especially since you don’t have the time to read even a page of Internet text describing an event incompatible with your espoused positions. Let’s give her a hand, folks!
Oh, I read the piece, all right. I’ve been working in the clinic with refugees from East Africa since 1991, and I regularly read articles on all sides of the issue–I don’t begrudge that time in the least.
It’s just you that I don’t have the least interest in engaging with, even on issues we might agree upon.
Hard to imagine how anyone could resist the blandishments of a charmer like you, isn’t it?
I used to enjoy opera. Then I switched to FireFox.
The article isn’t from a “side of the issue”. It’s just a report of what happened. Facts don’t have a bias towards any side.
Hard to imagine how anyone could think that you weren’t really due much respect at all, isn’t it?
By “side”, I meant “aspect”–medical, legal, political, cultural, etc. All the reports I read have different takes, and synthesis is about putting those different aspects together into what it means for people I work with.
Then that must mean that when I say that even measured by Caledonian standards, that remark is abusive and jerkish, and I won’t be responding to anything else you say, ever, you won’t notice the lack.
As an additional note, I got the following link from Unfogged. It’s a review of the latest book from Ron Suskind, The One Percent Doctrine, in which is detailed how America tortured a delusional, mentally-disabled man because it couldn’t publically admit that he wasn’t important.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901211.html
Speaking of the Bermuda Triangle, my covivant LotStreetWiz just sent me a link to pirate-themed ads for Sea-Doo water scooters. Go to Sea-Doo films and pick the film, “Higjacked” to display a menu of three videos with “pirates” extolling the virtues of Sea-Doos.
Zap to the head can stave off migraine
Good morning, good afternoon,
And what have you got to say?
Well I’m waiting, but I can’t stay long,
It’s such a lovely day.
There’s a time to be talking
And a time when it’s no use.
Right now I think the things you say
Are liable to confuse.
I’ve just gone solo.
Do you play solo?
Ain’t life a solo?
I’ve always lived in a mansion
On the other side of the moon.
I’ve always kept a unicorn
And I never sing out of tune.
I could tell you that the grass is really greener
On the other side of the hill,
But I can’t communicate with you
And I guess I never will.
We’ve all gone solo.
We all play solo.
Ain’t life a solo?
“Solo” by Sandy Denny