new and improved

[I Am He]

Just a thought. Couldn't BS be used as a Fuel?? Like if they could convert BS into Energy, would it not be possible to put a BSArtist on a Space Craft and use the BS to propel the Ship.??

[Dragon Star]

Just a thought. Couldn't BS be used as a Fuel?? Like if they could convert BS into Energy, would it not be possible to put a BSArtist on a Space Craft and use the BS to propel the Ship.??

My head exploded just now. :|

[Lonewulf]

It's a bloody witticism, that's all. People are taking this way too seriously.

I don't think you get it. This isn't over a witticism, this is Bill Thompson's constant tendency to stick to what he says (however unseriously it was meant to be), and defend it to the last breath.

It's one of those arguments that seems to be over one thing, but is really over another.

[Doe, John]

So it's like, if George Carlin had said it (and he may have) then everybody chuckles, oh isn't that funny. Since Bill said it, time to see how tight you can wind him. Sounds like a fun game. :wink:

[Мастер]

I don't think you get it.

You're bloody well right about that.

This isn't over a witticism, this is Bill Thompson's constant tendency to stick to what he says (however unseriously it was meant to be), and defend it to the last breath.

I suspect he enjoys pulling the strings and watching everyone dance...

[Мастер]

So it's like, if George Carlin had said it (and he may have) then everybody chuckles, oh isn't that funny. Since Bill said it, time to see how tight you can wind him. Sounds like a fun game. :wink:

It looks to me like Bill is the one doing the winding here...

[Enzo]

Oh gee, fooled me, Bill.

[Lance]

This started a few weeks ago when my guard was down and I inadvertently let Bill get to me. My comparison between toilet paper and corn cobs was meant humorously at best.

Then, when I saw how seriously he seemed to be taking it, I was amazed that he would push such a stupid argument so far. Yeah, I know, I forgot who I was dealing with.

But I'm over it now. Finding that NASA article yesterday was just good timing.

[Lonewulf]

I vote we start a war over whether something can be New and Improved or not.

Nuclear missiles allowed.

Just to demonstrate our strength, we can target something nobody cares about. Like, say... Canada. Or Albania.

[Bill_Thompson]

If they rebuilt the levees in New Orleans, the levees would not and could not be both new and improved at the same time. They will either be new or they will be improved. Once something is improved, it is no longer new.

[Lance]

Bill;

I am sincerely sorry that you cannot understand the concept. I no longer wish to debate this with you because my inferior intellect is far too lacking to be able to present this to you in a fashion someone as superior as yourself would be able to lower yourself to understand.

Let us just agree to disagree.

[Enzo]

So then the improved version must be old. And the old version would be even older. And the improved levee they just finished building is not new. SO it must be the old one, even though it is brand new, though it can't be. But the old one failed, so it can't be improved. Nothing can be improved or it would no longer be new. SO everything is old and worse.

QED

Quid erronium dumbass.

[I Am He]

I told Bill in another Thread that if we left things up to people like him, we would still be living in Caves. Well Bill, since people like us crawled out of Caves and started to build New things, and then constantly improved on them by making newer things, which by the way made them both New and Improved over the previous version, we just kept on doing that over and over again, improving on the New things that we built. But since you and your ilk still live in Caves, you never made anything New and then Improved on them. So that is why your brain cannot grasp the concept of New and Improved. So in your case, Ignorance is Bliss.

[Bill_Thompson]

I told Bill in another Thread that if we left things up to people like him, we would still be living in Caves. Well Bill, since people like us crawled out of Caves and started to build New things, and then constantly improved on them by making newer things, which by the way made them both New and Improved over the previous version, we just kept on doing that over and over again, improving on the New things that we built. But since you and your ilk still live in Caves, you never made anything New and then Improved on them. So that is why your brain cannot grasp the concept of New and Improved. So in your case, Ignorance is Bliss.

They are improved over the previous version.

That means they are an improvement.

It is not the same thing as being just plain improved.

"Improved over the previous version" means the same thing as "being and improvement" which means that they are new.

They do not teach logic and critical thinking in school these days and I mean this as no offense to you but I am sorry to say that I can tell when I come across someone who has not taken a class in logic. I know that sounds bad. But I do not mean it in a bad way and I mean no offense.

Your post reflects what computer scientists call "fuzzy logic" the definitions and interpretations of concepts flow and drift a lot and are not precise.

Everything you described in your statement seems to be just talking about making new things that are an improvement. You don't really talk about improving preexisting (aka old) things.

And you top it off with good ol' fashioned Ad Hominem attacks. This is not logical and reflects badly.

(ahem, FACE! )

[Bill_Thompson]

So then the improved version must be old. And the old version would be even older. And the improved levee they just finished building is not new. SO it must be the old one, even though it is brand new, though it can't be. But the old one failed, so it can't be improved. Nothing can be improved or it would no longer be new. SO everything is old and worse.

That is funny.
My example implies that the levees can actually be repaired. This was perhaps an illogical assumption.

I think that the word "new" might be subjective. But in an engineering sense it is critical to know if a component is either new or improved. A piece of test equipment would be categorized as being either one or the other. So in the engineering world it is obvious and you would get a lot of stark stares if you said "that item is both new and improved at the same time"

In a pure logical sense, since you are using both words in the same sentence, they would have to describe two separate states. An improved thing would imply something that is altered and hence something that is no longer new.

(Edited because QED has too many subjective uses)

[I Am He]

Now let me get this straight, you are trying to tell me that what I'm saying is illogical?? When your logic leaves allot to be desired. Trying to use Engineering as an example to bolster your case is purely idiotic. Who do you think come up with the ideas for new things and then improve on them?? People have been improving on inventions since man has been around, and you are trying to say that Engineers want to know if a component is either New or improved...Right? Don't you mean New or Used??

Let me ask you Bill, when they come out with a new model of car each year, is it or is it not an improvement of the model from the previous year?? Ergo, New and Improved. Or would it be, as you say: "An improved thing would imply something that is altered and hence something that is no longer new."?? That statement does not make sense at all, and if you cannot see that, then as I said before, There Is Something Seriously Wrong With You. But seeing where it came from, I can understand it.

By the way, Bill. You owe me a new Keyboard. I sprayed my Iced Tea all over it after reading this Gem.
"An improved thing would imply something that is altered and hence something that is no longer new."

[Enzo]

New and improved might be separate states, but they are not mutually exclusive. My apple is round AND red. One does not preclude the other.

If in your business you have defined certain terms - what we call terms of art - that doesn't mean those definitions apply to public discussion. For example you might define an oscilloscope as "improved" if it is an older model modified to more recent specs. For purposes of inventory control or certification tracing you might want to differentiate those oscilloscopes from units bought new already built to the more recent specs, even though both types of scope have the same specs. But that is specialized jargon.

In general, if we make something, we can then make a new version of it, that still has the exact same specs as the old one. New, but not improved. On the other hand we can make the new version of the product, and include improvements over the older version. New AND improved.

I can think of a guitar amplifier that was very popular. The first year it had a certain logo on it. The next year they changed the logo - all else remaining the same - because of a copyright infringement possibility: new, but not improved. Then the following year, they changed it to the mark 2 version, making certain improvements to it. Once again it was new, but this time it was also improved.

(Specifically the logo was from a endorsing musician's album jacket. When it was determined that the logo belonged to the record company rather than to the artist himself, they made the change. Eddie Van Halen in this case.)


SOmething that has an improvement is by definition improved. The only distinction between the two terms is that one is a noun and the other an adjective.