Monday, April 05, 2010

Heathrow, Eastercon, 2010

Convention hotel.


'I'll show you the life of the mind.'


Keep going.


Full coverage.


Better truth through advertising.


Instructions to cab drivers.


Do not feed the birds.

10 Comments:

Blogger Peter Hollo said...

'I'll show you the life of the mind.'

hahaha

April 05, 2010 3:13 PM  
Blogger ~M said...

"Please don't feed the birds, this is where they come to die"

April 05, 2010 5:38 PM  
Blogger George Berger said...

That hotel hallway looks like a carpeted prison wing. Life of the mind indeed.

April 05, 2010 11:41 PM  
Blogger PeteY said...

So, Paul, aside from the beautiful setting, how was Eastercon? I'm jealous, stuck as I am in post-industrial North Italy, where videocracy -> idiocracy. I feel I should have planned my hols more carefully.

April 08, 2010 3:20 AM  
Blogger Paul McAuley said...

Hi Pete, will try to do a brief report over the weekend, but don't hold me to it. Have book to write.

April 08, 2010 8:33 AM  
Blogger George Berger said...

Hi Pete--I know you will appreciate this. You are conceptually correct to use an implication sign (material, relevant,....). Idiocracy feeds on much more than TV. I'm not saying this to seem erudite. I am tremendously impressed by what WikiLeaks has accomplished in just one evening. Besides the great reporting job, it has undermined many people's faith in normal politics and most media.

April 08, 2010 10:02 AM  
Blogger PeteY said...

George, you talk about relevance and then say you're not doing it to seem erudite. What if I said you do seem erudite, irrespective of antecedents? Wouldn't you be staring down the abyss of a paradox of (choose system) implication? Heh heh.

April 09, 2010 12:48 AM  
Blogger George Berger said...

Ha Ha! That's precisely the problem. I know all about material implication. But all I know about relevant implications and their logics are the generic name and a few basic ideas. Not one system in detail.

April 09, 2010 9:17 AM  
Blogger PeteY said...

Actually there are paradoxes of relevant implication too, if you use only the intensional operators and paradoxes of strict (ie modal) implication as well. Another reason why we're doomed.

April 09, 2010 11:53 PM  
Blogger George Berger said...

here I plead ignorance.

April 10, 2010 10:37 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts