[Klug-general] Talk at the next meet

Karl Lattimer karl at qdh.org.uk
Sun Nov 16 15:24:37 UTC 2008

> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:12:36PM +0000, Karl Lattimer wrote:
> > I've trimmed everything that JD's ignorance prevented her from
> > understanding and therefore she wanted to argue about "just because". I
> > will only counter the points which are relevant rather than just those
> > which are intended to be argumentative. 
> "I am right, and you are wrong.  I will henceforth assume that you
> agree with me on that point and proceed with only the issues that I
> suspect you will be less likely to be able to disprove with hard
> counter evidence."

Actually no I can't be bothered to argue with you. So I trimmed out
anything I thought would be argumentative. *sigh* seems like I failed.

> Incidentally, my name is Julia, not JD. Kindly use my name correctly.
> > Yep it is a UI issue... One which is easily solvable...

> So easy that it hasnt been solved in the 47 years that we have had
> email.

Erm if you look back we were talking about an issue introduced when
Microsoft released outlook with exchange. Where emails for meeting
requests are received and then processed by the user seeing the email in
their inbox and clicking one of 3 buttons to add the meeting request to
the calendar. Not exactly a 47 year old problem.

> > That is utter bull! Never heard of Noam Chomsky? The maths involved in
> > language semantics is simple. 
> Yes, the maths is simple, so shockingly simple that naturaly language
> interfaces are the prevalant norm.
> Problem that exibits the english language does, the flexbility that it
> has. Make computation diffucult of language. etc...
> This isn't Deutsch, this isn't Latin, english doesn't have the the
> clearly defined grammar of some languages.
> Not to mention, my inbox contains emails in Nederlands, Deutsch,
> Francais, and English. This makes it even harder for a computer to deal
> with, as it has to differentiate and interpret each one, Not to mention
> that some languages, like Nederlands, borrow so extensively from other
> languages that even for humans we get confused.

Firstly, we're not talking about natural language interfaces we're
talking about what can be inferred or determined from the language
people use.


Anyway. Please stop being so arrogant about everything. You seem to
think you know more about everything than I do. 

Where I stand at the minute I'm actually on the forefront of the new
developments which are going on in the area of free desktop usability
and user experience. We're reaffirming HCI principles in the modern
desktop. We have buy in from many of the largest corporates in the field
and we're making headway into the future.

I suggest you take Dans advice and stop this thread. You're being
aggressive and argumentative where as I was attempting to articulate a
vision shared by many of the authorities in the arena.


More information about the Kent mailing list