Microsoft Tests Social Search Waters With 'so.cl' Network 135
benfrog writes "Microsoft just quietly launched so.cl in an experiment to more closely unite web searches and social networking. It's not intended as a stand-alone social network — users can log in with Facebook or Windows Live IDs, and it will share your searches publicly by default. "As students work together, they often search for the same items, and discover new shared interests by sharing links. We see this trend today on many social networks, such as Twitter, where shared links spread virally and amplify popular content. So.cl experiments with this concept by automatically sharing links as you search." They've also (wisely?) put Bing Search at the center of the site."
Site attempts to breach browser security (Score:4, Interesting)
Timestamp: 5/22/2012 12:06:38 PM Error: uncaught exception: [Exception... "Security error" code: "1000" nsresult: "0x805303e8 (NS_ERROR_DOM_SECURITY_ERR)" location: "http://www.so.cl/ Line: 185"]
That site has such intrusive code that Firefox 12 with high security settings won't even display it.
Re:Paradox! (Score:1, Interesting)
No, but hypothetically speaking yes. One cannot answer hypothetical questions correctly, since they offer no "truth" (the "yes") from which to derive an answer.
The logic (Philosophy) professors at college hated me, because I was right. ALL hypothetical questions must be answered hypothetically. The question in class were usually something like "If all cats are dogs and all dogs are horses, are all cats horses?", the hypothetical answer is "yes" but in reality (truth) is no. And I would answer them that way. Thus, all hypothetical questions are outside the framework of Truth, even if they are "true" .. hypothetically speaking.
This is important because people often base hypothetical questions as "fact", and thus trap people into thinking the logic of the question is "true" and thus the whole premise is "true" when in fact, it was just a hypothetical question, with a false premise, of which the answer ... by default ... should have been in the negative.
In your case, the question is in fact NOT a Headline (unless you offer evidence to the contrary), so the answer is "no" since it is not a headline, the premise is false, therefore the answer should be false/negative. You offer a classic example of why hypothetical questions are misleading. However, the correct answer is "hypothetically speaking ... yes"
Re:Paradox! (Score:5, Interesting)
That's very stupid. Hypothetical questions can have value, and if you insist on answering them all with "no" you lose that value. Here's an example taken from Albert Einstein; I've modified it somewhat, but the ideas are the same:
If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), do I observe such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest though spatially oscillating? Yes, according to the Gallilean transformation, I would. However, there seems to be no such thing, neither on the basis of experience nor according to Maxwell's equations, so I deduced the principle of relativity.
(Original here [pitt.edu])
If you insisted on answering "no" to his question, you'd get the wrong conclusion. Just because you can't get to velocity c doesn't mean the thought experiment is "outside the framework of Truth" (whatever the hell that means). This would all be fine if you simply accepted that an argument can have a truth value independent of its premises and conclusions. The argument "If all cats are dogs and all dogs are horses, all cats are horses" is true. However, the premises are false, so the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the truth of the argument, and in fact in this case the conclusion is false. I could write this more clearly in first order predicate logic if needed.
To be honest, you don't really know what you're talking about, your professors were probably annoyed by your smugness mixed with your stupidity--not the fact that you were right--and you should have been modded down, not up.
Re:Paradox! (Score:4, Interesting)
The logic (Philosophy) professors at college hated me, because I was right. ALL hypothetical questions must be answered hypothetically. The question in class were usually something like "If all cats are dogs and all dogs are horses, are all cats horses?", the hypothetical answer is "yes" but in reality (truth) is no.
You have just reinvented the subjunctive mood for verbs. Just rewrite your syllogism in the old fashioned English subjunctive mood and see:
"If all cats WERE dogs, and all dogs WERE horses, WOULD all cats BE horses?" Yes, they would be, but they aren't, as you pointed out. A counter-factual "would be" can coexist with a factual "are not". Making hypothetical, but false, statements is one of the classic uses of the subjunctive. The subjunctive makes it clear that you are not asserting a real fact, just a hypothesis.