On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 17:37:56 -0700, Tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> penned: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 11:44:12PM +0000, Monique Y. Herman wrote: >> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 15:41:29 -0700, Tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> penned: >> > On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 09:55:03PM +0000, Monique Y. Herman wrote: >> >> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 16:54:49 -0400, Naitik Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> penned: > [snip] >> I'm not sure what you're asking here. > [snip] > > The philosophical question has to do with fundamental limitations of > axiomatic systems when applied to human behavior. > > I'm always on the lookout for "case evidence" for where an axiomatic > system is able to fully determine human behavior. (The book discusses > the failures of Walden 2 and the Soviet Union). > > The point is, there's something humans can do that's not expressible in > a set of axioms. Everthing always comes down to pragmatism (i.e., I > still have to scan it quickly but it's better than...) >
Ah. Well in that case, part of my human behavior is that I won't trust a spam-filter to be 100% accurate, even if it *has* been 100% accurate in the past. I definitely find routing spam to ~/mail/spam to be much better than having it appear in my inbox. I hate it when I see that there's new mail (yay! someone loves me!) and then discover that it's some piece of crap mass-mailer who apparently thinks I'm a complete moron. Putting it all in one place means I don't get the unpleasant discovery that my sour apple jelly belly is really vomit-flavored. -- monique Please respond to the group OR to my email, but not both. (Group preferred.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
