[PD] Question about object categorizing

[András Murányi]

On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Mathieu Bouchard <matju at artengine.ca>wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009, João Pais wrote:
>
>  Those features have to be easy to think about. Turns out that one of the
>>> easiest features to think about in this case, are things like: where you
>>> first learned the basic concept of each object class.
>>>
>> yes, that's a very good example of category-building. if it's simple,
>> everyone is going to remember it.
>>
>
> What I mean is that using those categories does not much except reinforcing
> stereotypes that are just artefacts of how things were learned by certain
> groups of people, at the expense of not just everybody who didn't learn it
> like that, but also everybody who doesn't want it to be grouped like that.


There is still some good in this world as categories 1.) are an optional
startup plugin (and believe me there will be more startup plugins to piss
you off, that's why they are optional) 2.) they are made up of nested lists
which even your dog/cat is able to edit in case you don't feel to ;o)
This is how they look:
*imaging {{gem particles} {gem manipulators} {gem pixes} wrapper particles
automata processing}*

-- 
Muranyi Andras
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20090926/05df13c2/attachment.htm>