0561: "Well"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

phodd
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:14 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby phodd » Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:34 pm UTC


TimLambert
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:01 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby TimLambert » Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:43 pm UTC

wintermute:
His evidence for "It is easier to learn and allows for about 10 percent faster typing" is "Admirers of the Dvorak keyboard claim much more than a 10 percent improvement, as well as faster learning rates"? Seems rather circular to me.

No, his evidence is "Don Norman compared keyboard layouts with a computer model of human typing".

Norman's paper on this only has 185 cites on Google scholar so it may be a bit obscure.

See also Leonard J. West The Standard and Dvorak Keyboards Revisited: Direct Measures of Speed

ckbryant
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:42 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby ckbryant » Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:50 pm UTC

Wikipedian protestor--

Point taken. Herewith, Liebowitz and Margolis, "The Fable of the Keys," Journal of Law and Economics, 1990: http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html

"...the evidence in the standard history of Qwerty versus Dvorak is flawed and incomplete. First, the claims for the superiority of the Dvorak keyboard are suspect. The most dramatic claims are traceable to Dvorak himself, and the best-documented experiments, as well as recent ergonomic studies, suggest little or no advantage for the Dvorak keyboard."

But I say again to you Dvorak users: good on you! Let a thousand flowers bloom! It's just the evangelism that bugs me. Also, the way everyone from Paul Krugman to Jarred Diamond takes the "superiority" of Dvorak as a settled fact, and a teaching moment for Profound Truths, when there's much, much less to the story than that.

mootinator
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:27 pm UTC
Location: Saskatoon, SK

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby mootinator » Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:53 pm UTC

ckbryant wrote:Based on the experience of that one guy who can tell you what day of the week March 21, 1806 was without even thinking about it, we could save millions of dollars annually by never printing another calendar, you know?


I command you to use an example which shows an even remote understanding of how the economy works.

*We* would not save anything by never printing another calendar. In fact, there is no *we* in the economy other than the state, which acquires all it's funds illegitimately through threat of force. I, as such, do not even recognize the state as *we*. The economy would be *less* productive if nobody ever printed another calendar. An entire industry would disappear, and thousands of jobs and livelihoods (photographers, printers, etc) would be lost. Even if I did recognize the state as *we*, *we* would be losing millions of dollars in tax revenue due to the loss of this industry.

Sorry for ranting so much :P

manydills
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:48 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby manydills » Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:53 pm UTC

Barbara Blackburn wrote:"It makes much more sense than the standard, so-called Qwerty keyboard (named after the first five letters on the top row),"


Shouldn't that be six letters?

ckbryant
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:42 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby ckbryant » Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:59 pm UTC

mootinator wrote:In fact, there is no *we* in the economy other than the state, which acquires all it's funds illegitimately through threat of force. I, as such, do not even recognize the state as *we*.


Hey, man, all property is theft when you get down to brass tacks. Go talk to the Cherokee Nation sometime. I can't give a republic based on the consent of the governed less legitimacy in my mind than some unwashed frontiersman with a rifle saying, "This here land is mine! Now Git!" (Or his descendants, who feel the theft has been ratified by time.)

ckbryant
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:42 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby ckbryant » Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:10 pm UTC

Oh, another Dvorak citation--this is an old article from Reason that's very enjoyable:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29944.html

mootinator
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:27 pm UTC
Location: Saskatoon, SK

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby mootinator » Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:15 pm UTC

ckbryant wrote:I can't give a republic based on the consent of the governed less legitimacy in my mind than some unwashed frontiersman with a rifle saying, "This here land is mine! Now Git!" (Or his descendants, who feel the theft has been ratified by time.)


1. Who was asked for consent? All I see are governments trying to disarm citizens in order to prevent them from realistically not consenting... I mean, uh, "in the name of public safety."

2. European settlement in North America was encouraged by European governments! The unwashed frontiersman who showed up with a rifle believed what he was doing was right because.

a. He was a brainless peon.
b. His government told him it was right.

Your point only proves that governments have been stealing things for far longer that the USA has even existed. Mr. Frontiersman only started objecting to his government when it started stealing from *HIM* and suddenly, *BAM* The United States of America came into being.

firinne
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:40 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby firinne » Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:21 pm UTC

UnAsian Firefly = yes.

Except, of course, as crowd-fillers. There was some representation there.

evilbeanfiend wrote:uncomfortable truth: dvorak's studies may well be flawed, but citing that 'dvorak oversaw them' as a flaw is also pretty flawed as an argument. ad hominem is just lazy here.


That's not ad hominem, that's pointing out a source of bias. Ad hominem would be saying "Dvorak oversaw them, and Dvorak was a child molester, so the studies are flawed".

ckbryant
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:42 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby ckbryant » Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:28 pm UTC

mootinator wrote:1. Who was asked for consent? All I see are governments trying to disarm citizens in order to prevent them from realistically not consenting... I mean, uh, "in the name of public safety."

2. European settlement in North America was encouraged by European governments! The unwashed frontiersman who showed up with a rifle believed what he was doing was right because.

a. He was a brainless peon.
b. His government told him it was right.

Your point only proves that governments have been stealing things for far longer that the USA has even existed. Mr. Frontiersman only started objecting to his government when it started stealing from *HIM* and suddenly, *BAM* The United States of America came into being.


I find it disturbing that you seem to feel the only "realistic" way you can not consent to the government of the United States as it exists today is by shooting people. How about running for office instead? Get enough people to sign on to your vision, and you can establish whatever kind of government you all want to have.

Your understanding of the American Revolution is also cause for comment. The biggest problem the frontier populations had with Great Britain in the years leading up to the Revolution was that it was not permitting them to kill Indians and steal their land quickly enough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763). Only one factor in the long strife between colonies and mother country, but it is the one you chose to mention. The Tea Act 1773, which everyone seems to want to riff on these days, was in fact a tax reduction that threatened the money men in Boston because it made their smuggling less viable than legal commerce.

mootinator
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:27 pm UTC
Location: Saskatoon, SK

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby mootinator » Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:45 pm UTC

ckbryant wrote:I find it disturbing that you seem to feel the only "realistic" way you can not consent to the government of the United States as it exists today is by shooting people. How about running for office instead? Get enough people to sign on to your vision, and you can establish whatever kind of government you all want to have.

Your understanding of the American Revolution is also cause for comment. The biggest problem the frontier populations had with Great Britain in the years leading up to the Revolution was that it was not permitting them to kill Indians and steal their land quickly enough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763). Only one factor in the long strife between colonies and mother country, but it is the one you chose to mention. The Tea Act 1773, which everyone seems to want to riff on these days, was in fact a tax reduction that threatened the money men in Boston because it made their smuggling less viable than legal commerce.


Two things: 1. I have run for office. If you were to attempt to do so yourself, you would realize how heavily stacked the odds are against anyone who wishes to differ from the existing political establishment, and that the establishment consistently creates rules to keep things that way. I suggest you try getting people to sign on to a vision when the majority of people only consider certain established sources of information/opinion credible, and those same sources of information prefer to marginalize, rather than analyze dissent.

2. There is no need for me to consent to the government of the USA. A simple look to your left would reveal that my location is not in the USA. That might also provide some insight as to why my education in the history of the USA might be lacking in detail. Public schools tend to marginalize the importance of the history of other nations. :P It is taking me years to undo the damage the public school system inflicted upon my brain, and I do apologize for that.

Edit: Your wikipedia entry isn't exactly a shining endorsement of your argument:
Many historians argue that the proclamation ceased to be a major source of tension after 1768, since the aforementioned treaties opened up extensive lands for settlement. Others have argued that colonial resentment of the proclamation contributed to the growing divide between the colonies and the Mother Country.


I've heard it used to claim settlement in Canada was legitimate because it was contracted. The counterargument being that the treaties were likely coerced. But I digress.
Last edited by mootinator on Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:54 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
neoliminal
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby neoliminal » Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:53 pm UTC

If you use DVORAK of course vi sucks. You'd have to remap all the keys to be under your fingers. It wouldn't surprise me if all DVORAK users were emacs users.

Oh yeah... you're a pee-gu.
Last edited by neoliminal on Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:58 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]

User avatar
Iridos
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:58 am UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby Iridos » Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:54 pm UTC

PRO: funniest part was the ranting against vi while garbling-then-correcting the alt-text using emacs (a garbling which would probably not have happened using vi) :-P

CON: had to look up "firefly" as I don't have/want a TV for over 10 years now.

And as for the well... aren't most truths worth knowing somewhat uncomfortable? Douglas Adams thought so - they guy who got too much of that truth serum went mad and everyone listening to him with him.

Rilian
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:33 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby Rilian » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:08 pm UTC

I don't understand the alt text or the joke behind the edit or whatever.
And I'm -2.

Kame
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:12 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby Kame » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:15 pm UTC

firinne wrote:
evilbeanfiend wrote:uncomfortable truth: dvorak's studies may well be flawed, but citing that 'dvorak oversaw them' as a flaw is also pretty flawed as an argument. ad hominem is just lazy here.


That's not ad hominem, that's pointing out a source of bias. Ad hominem would be saying "Dvorak oversaw them, and Dvorak was a child molester, so the studies are flawed".


No, the argument that the studies were flawed because Dvorak oversaw them is an Ad hominem circumstantial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial

firinne
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:40 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby firinne » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:24 pm UTC

Kame wrote:No, the argument that the studies were flawed because Dvorak oversaw them is an Ad hominem circumstantial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial


Wikipedia wrote:Mandy Rice-Davies's famous testimony, during the Profumo Affair, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?", is an example of a valid circumstantial argument. Her point is that since a man in a prominent position, accused of an affair with a callgirl, would deny the claim whether it was true or false, his denial, in itself, carries little evidential weight against the claim of an affair. Note, however, that this argument is valid only insofar as it devalues the denial; it does not bolster the original claim. To construe evidentiary invalidation of the denial as evidentiary validation of the original claim is fallacious (on several different bases, including that of argumentum ad hominem); however likely the man in question would be to deny an affair that did in fact happen, he could only be more likely to deny an affair that never did.

Kame
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:12 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby Kame » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:28 pm UTC

Apparently you didn't actually read that. If you had you'd know that the two situations are not comparable. One was about a politician denying that he had an affair while the other was about a man overseeing a study about his invention. In the first situation that IS what he is going to say no matter if he did have the affair or he didn't have the affair which is what Rice-Davie was saying. The alt-text was saying that the studies were flawed merely because Dvorak oversaw them. Whether or not he oversaw them has no bearing on the factuality of the studies.

firinne
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:40 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby firinne » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Kame wrote:Apparently you didn't actually read that. If you had you'd know that the two situations are not comparable. One was about a politician denying that he had an affair while the other was about a man overseeing a study about his invention. In the first situation that IS what he is going to say no matter if he did have the affair or he didn't have the affair which is what Rice-Davie was saying. The alt-text was saying that the studies were flawed merely because Dvorak oversaw them. Whether or not he oversaw them has no bearing on the factuality of the studies.


The details are different. The situations are comparable. If one oversees a study about one's own invention, one is bound by human psychology to bias the design of the study or the analysis. Note that no mention was made of experimentation, which at least attempts to study things in a controlled environment.

mootinator
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:27 pm UTC
Location: Saskatoon, SK

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby mootinator » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:34 pm UTC

firinne wrote:
Kame wrote:No, the argument that the studies were flawed because Dvorak oversaw them is an Ad hominem circumstantial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial


Wikipedia wrote:Mandy Rice-Davies's famous testimony, during the Profumo Affair, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?", is an example of a valid circumstantial argument. Her point is that since a man in a prominent position, accused of an affair with a callgirl, would deny the claim whether it was true or false, his denial, in itself, carries little evidential weight against the claim of an affair. Note, however, that this argument is valid only insofar as it devalues the denial; it does not bolster the original claim. To construe evidentiary invalidation of the denial as evidentiary validation of the original claim is fallacious (on several different bases, including that of argumentum ad hominem); however likely the man in question would be to deny an affair that did in fact happen, he could only be more likely to deny an affair that never did.


Translation:

If Dvorak oversaw the research, that doesn't, on it's own, prove there are no benefits to the DVORAK keyboard. The fact that his results don't seem to be repeatable (outside of an anecdotal basis) is what demonstrates that his research should be suspect. Not simply the fact that he might have been biased in the first place. (An ad hominem.)

User avatar
Quendor
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:39 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby Quendor » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:37 pm UTC

If I had a nickel for every time an XKCD strip made me stop and mist up, just a little, I'd have... well, a couple dollars anyway.

ckbryant
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:42 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby ckbryant » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:41 pm UTC

mootinator wrote:Edit: Your wikipedia entry isn't exactly a shining endorsement of your argument:
Many historians argue that the proclamation ceased to be a major source of tension after 1768, since the aforementioned treaties opened up extensive lands for settlement. Others have argued that colonial resentment of the proclamation contributed to the growing divide between the colonies and the Mother Country.


Okay, so it was only responsible for five years of "major tension" in the twelve years leading up to the war. And only if you stipulate to the shading of the facts by the editor who decided that historians who agree with him or her are "many," while historians who disagree are "others." (The weaseliest phrasing attainable by an editor who knows it would be impossible to defend "most historians.") I do not so stipulate, but I think I said it was only one factor among many leading to the American Revolution. I don't pretend to offer single-factor analyses of the major events of world history. The Stamp Act 1765, for instance, reads far better for those who want to tell a story of liberty triumphing over tyranny.

I do regret not checking your country of origin, but as long as it's not Myanmar, I am still happy to stand by my assertion. If you find your fellow citizens reluctant to abandon their current style of government in favor of whatever your preferred mode might be, you certainly can't expect it to be an easy argument. Canadians look around them and find that, on balance and considering the alternatives, they have a pretty good lot. One might almost say they give a kind of "consent" to the system by not seeking to change it when doing so is within their power.

Thank you for the discussion.

mootinator
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:27 pm UTC
Location: Saskatoon, SK

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby mootinator » Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:25 pm UTC

ckbryant wrote:Thank you for the discussion.


And you too sir.

User avatar
Katieesq
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:40 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby Katieesq » Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Cathode Ray Sunshine wrote:Those last two panels....just...damn.


Seriously. How heartbreaking.
Cupcakes of HOPE!

kunfushuss
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:58 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby kunfushuss » Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:41 pm UTC

"Norman did controlled experiments where he compared performance on the QWERTY key-board, the DVORAK keyboard, the alphabetic keyboard and a random layout [20]. They found that novice users performed better (measured in typing speed, not number of errors) with the QWERTY layout than with the DSK. This is probably caused by prior experience with the uni-versal keyboard  This is a common problem in these experiments. The skilled typists however showed a 5% speed advantage with the DVORAK layout"

Donald Norman, by the way, is the awesomest author and HCI guy ever. Note that he did not think 5% was significant enough to warrant change anyhow.

Most people understand that it's hard to change the status quo. As an HCI professional, I can verify that, even if they could change, neither Qwerty nor Dvorak would be chosen today. Instead, the keyboard would be nixed altogether in favor of speech recognizers. Mice would be nixed in favor of multi-touch screens too. So you can argue for Dvorak all you want, but you're only arguing whether you would rather eat bird feces or dog turds.

I eat bird feces, but only because they're cheap and because I can argue that you eat dog turds, and neither of us win.

User avatar
includemaliciousintent
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:08 am UTC
Location: Near hell, seriously ^^

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby includemaliciousintent » Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:59 pm UTC

Uncomfortable Truths:

No matter how much you insist, I will always hate Unix with the passion of a thousand fiery suns.
I will always side with Kira, even though I love L and Kira equally.
I am a Harry Potter nerd more than a computer nerd (Slytherin house ftw!).
Even though I am a female nerd, I will have trouble finding someone to love.


Feel uncomfortable now? ^^
"Money can buy you anything except true love and home grown tomatoes" - Prarie Home Companion (real radio show, not movie).

dmboyd
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:40 am UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby dmboyd » Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:03 pm UTC

includemaliciousintent wrote:Even though I am a female nerd, I will have trouble finding someone to love.


Feel uncomfortable now? ^^

Yeah, I do... Female nerds rock. You must have high expectations or something because some of my best friends are female nerds. Wait, is that what it is? The whole "friend, not girlfriend" thing?

I can haz random seed?

FalseProphet
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:21 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby FalseProphet » Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:33 pm UTC

Pxtl wrote:Ahh, yes - Hollywood's utter phobia of Asian actors. Notice, the casts for Dragonball, Avatar, and 21 - various movies based on source material that implies (or outright states) Asian characters, played by white actors.


Yeah, this news infuriated me. About as much as Ursula LeGuin's angry diatribe at Sci-Fi over the casting of Earthsea: Anyone who's read or seen an interview with LeGuin knows she makes an effort to incorporate significant non-white characters into her stories so for Sci-Fi to do that was a slap in the face.

As good a writer as Whedon is (and I am a fan), others have better made the point that he doesn't really understand people outside of white, middle-class Americans.

User avatar
rqm
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:30 pm UTC
Location: Mars
Contact:

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby rqm » Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:50 pm UTC

Many years from now XKCD will be remembered for a single meme: Men Fail Forever.
I can't help but notice that almost all stupid, embarrassing or evil stuff is done by males, and all clever, awesome or nice is done by females. The only exception is the stuff that is awesome but evil, *that* is the only kind of owning that can be done by males, the rest of the ownage is allergic to Y chromosomes.

Yeah sure it makes me Hitler to mention it, or even just noticing it might be a sin, I've spent all my life criticizing misogyny in media so I notice; and misanthropy feels like a thank you kick between the legs.

I'm sure Randall thinks he's undoing years of sexism single handedly, or maybe not, either way it has become anvilicious!

Anyway on Vi vs Emacs, I use Nice Editor (apt-get install ne), much simpler than NEdit, much more natural than pico or nano, I do the rest of my developing in Komodo and light text editing in gedit.

Vi vs Emacs hasn't been relevant in over a decade.

ckbryant
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:42 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby ckbryant » Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:07 pm UTC

rqm wrote:Many years from now XKCD will be remembered for a single meme: Men Fail Forever.
...
I've spent all my life criticizing misogyny in media so I notice; and misanthropy feels like a thank you kick between the legs.


"Misanthropy" is the hatred of humankind. Use "misandry" for hatred of males. It was necessary to coin that as a new word in the 20th century, since no one had thought to differentiate between "men" and "humans" much before that. Kind of ironic, eh?

sje46
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby sje46 » Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:21 pm UTC

rqm wrote:Many years from now XKCD will be remembered for a single meme: Men Fail Forever.
I can't help but notice that almost all stupid, embarrassing or evil stuff is done by males, and all clever, awesome or nice is done by females. The only exception is the stuff that is awesome but evil, *that* is the only kind of owning that can be done by males, the rest of the ownage is allergic to Y chromosomes.

Yeah sure it makes me Hitler to mention it, or even just noticing it might be a sin, I've spent all my life criticizing misogyny in media so I notice; and misanthropy feels like a thank you kick between the legs.

I'm sure Randall thinks he's undoing years of sexism single handedly, or maybe not, either way it has become anvilicious!

Anyway on Vi vs Emacs, I use Nice Editor (apt-get install ne), much simpler than NEdit, much more natural than pico or nano, I do the rest of my developing in Komodo and light text editing in gedit.

Vi vs Emacs hasn't been relevant in over a decade.
CAn you rephrase all of this? I don't understand what you're trying to say, but I want to know.
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

firinne
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:40 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby firinne » Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:36 pm UTC

mootinator wrote:Translation:

If Dvorak oversaw the research, that doesn't, on it's own, prove there are no benefits to the DVORAK keyboard. The fact that his results don't seem to be repeatable (outside of an anecdotal basis) is what demonstrates that his research should be suspect. Not simply the fact that he might have been biased in the first place. (An ad hominem.)


I know what it means. The problem is that "Dvorak oversaw the research" wasn't the only argument being offered up.

User avatar
Ari
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:09 pm UTC
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby Ari » Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:38 pm UTC

Wouldn't the scientific approach be to design a good stody about Dvorak rather than complain that there's no good evidence for (or against) it?

And conceding ergonomics was a good move. I use Dvorak because it's comfortable, wheras QWERTY is like banging my wrists against a wall repeatedly.
"Hey %*&^er, offensive communication works fine so long as you do it respectfully." :D
"I am so quoting that out of context at a later date."

FireZs
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:18 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby FireZs » Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:56 pm UTC

Hollywood doesn't necessarily hate Asians. It's mostly Asian men they hate. It's a little better for Asian women, who find a solid niche as potential mates for the white male leads.

abitha wrote:I feel sorry for her too... but taking q00u's logic above (which i heartily agree with) at least it's better for her in the long run - rather than continuing to believe the guy loves her when he doesn't, she can dump him, move on with her life and find someone who's really worth her time.


But she loves him. In real life, when this happens, the guy usually has a lot of dating options and the girl usually doesn't. So what's likely going to happen is the girl will cling to him as best as she can until the guy decides to dump her. Of course, in real life the well doesn't exist, so if it did maybe she would leave him.

Kaijyuu
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:58 am UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby Kaijyuu » Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:10 pm UTC

ckbryant wrote:Use "misandry" for hatred of males. It was necessary to coin that as a new word in the 20th century, since no one had thought to differentiate between "men" and "humans" much before that. Kind of ironic, eh?

Yet misogyny (or in other words, a word differentiating between humans and women) had existed for a long time previous. If anything, the existence of "misandry" shows that the scales are tipping closer to a balance.

Not that either are remotely condonable, of course.
The cake is a lie, but truth is in Pi.

User avatar
Alpha Omicron
Posts: 2765
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 1:07 pm UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby Alpha Omicron » Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:26 pm UTC

On keyboard layouts and evidence:
See for yourself.

This is the first time I've felt that Randall really screwed something up, factually.
Here is a link to a page which leverages aggregation of my tweetbook social blogomedia.

Ran
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 9:15 am UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby Ran » Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:38 pm UTC

Alpha Omicron wrote:On keyboard layouts and evidence:
http://www.colemak.com/Compare See for yourself.

Hmmm. I wasn't convinced, but then I checked the link... colemak.com certainly sounds like it'd be an unbiased source for comparisons between QWERTY vs Dvorak vs Colemak layouts.

User avatar
dennisw
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:09 am UTC
Location: Appearing pro se AND pro bono!
Contact:

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby dennisw » Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:54 pm UTC

rqm wrote:Many years from now XKCD will be remembered for a single meme: Men Fail Forever.

xkcd is so far from unique in perpetuating misandry that it won't stand out for that. Have you ever watched any movies or TV (not to mention theater and literature)? The male head of household as buffoon has been around for a long, long time.
Try the Printifier for xkcd. You can now scale the comic between 50 and 150%.

I find these very useful: Common Errors in English Usage (web site) and Eats, Shoots & Leaves (book). You may, too.

e pluribus unum
Unleash unlicensed ungulates!

dean.menezes
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:47 am UTC

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby dean.menezes » Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:27 pm UTC

Wow. I use the Dvorak keyboard and the EMACS operating system text editor. I wonder if anyone uses Dvorak+vi?

Of course, everyone knows that if you want to use other people's systems, you should use ed, the standard UNIX text editor.

sje46
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby sje46 » Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:02 am UTC

dennisw wrote:
rqm wrote:Many years from now XKCD will be remembered for a single meme: Men Fail Forever.

xkcd is so far from unique in perpetuating misandry that it won't stand out for that. Have you ever watched any movies or TV (not to mention theater and literature)? The male head of household as buffoon has been around for a long, long time.

That is true. Just watch shows like Family Guy, King of Queens, Yes Dear, The Simpsons, etc, where teh female is almost always the voice of reason. But I honestly do not think that Randall is being misandrous (word?). He treats men and women the same. They are equally evil, childish, silly, romantic, intelligent, nerdy. Just because Randall has a comic that has some feminist overtones doesn't mean he's anti-men. And this single strip doesn't prove that either. The main character--who always embarrasses himself or something--is basically just the author himself, I think. He's not trying to make all men as stupid.
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

User avatar
MuToiD_MaN
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:51 pm UTC
Location: Irvine, CA

Re: "Well" Discussion

Postby MuToiD_MaN » Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:44 am UTC

You people have all been trolled.
ĉiam veti sur Duke


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 39 guests