Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 23rd Jan 2008 22:07 UTC
Linux With Linux on the desktop going from a slow crawl to verging on an explosion, many have toiled with the question: How do we make this happen faster? A well-known Austin-based Linux Advocate thinks he has the answer.
Thread beginning with comment 297475
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Self-agreement
by WereCatf on Thu 24th Jan 2008 00:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Self-agreement"
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

Ken has come to the correct conclusion that the majority of people who use a computer haven't a clue that they have a choice in how it's operated.

Because the conclusion is largely subjective in nature [..] it can legitimately be called correct.

If a conclusion is largely subjective by nature then it actually means it's not possible to tell if it is right or wrong. OTOH if it was objective... Besides, there is nothing to back that claim up. As you said, it is very subjective and there are lots of opinions in both directions.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Self-agreement
by stestagg on Thu 24th Jan 2008 13:41 in reply to "RE[2]: Self-agreement"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Actually, I was being quite precise there. I didn't use the words 'right' or 'wrong' but 'correct', and I even qualified that by adding the 'can legitimately be called' phrase before it.

Take subjective scoring in the Olympics for example. If someone performs well in an ice skating competition and are given a good score, then you can't claim the score was 'right' in a mathematical sense, but to say that the judges gave a correct score, is perfectly satisfactory.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Self-agreement
by Moochman on Thu 24th Jan 2008 17:48 in reply to "RE[3]: Self-agreement"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd say the word "accurate" is more accurate.

Reply Parent Score: 2