Allegro Brew

Allegro Brew

Johan Halmén

Member #1,550

September 2001

Since this beer label caused some amusement at a pub in London, I thought I should put the original here, for everyone to use. Yes, use it at your own risk.
.http://www.allegro.cc/files/attachment/597651
I had printed the labels on some A6 sized adhesive sheets and just attached them to the pints. The waiter didn't like that very much. One guy at the table next to us liked it a lot, because his mom used to have an Austin Allegro.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Years of thorough research have revealed that the red "x" that closes a window, really isn't red, but white on red background.

Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest.

Edgar Reynaldo

Major Reynaldo

May 2007

Awesome. 8-)

Now I need to go make some moonshine so I can use the label properly.

This should go on a t-shirt.

Eagle and Allegro 5 binaries | Older Allegro 4 and 5 binaries | Allegro 5 compile guide
King Piccolo will make it so Then I could just flip it with some sweet, sweet matrix math. In either case, I’ll ride this wagon until the wheels fall off. Thanks to those that keep it running

William Labbett

Member #4,486

March 2004

I've got the sticker on the side of my PC table People love it.

Andrei Ellman

Member #3,434

April 2003

Perhaps we could print these out and stick them to every pint-glass we find. Spread the word!!!

--
Don't let the illegitimates turn you into carbon.

Edgar Reynaldo

Major Reynaldo

May 2007

There is one grammatical error in it though.

Quote:

... , your dog, ~~and~~ or anything else...

I guess it does say it's beer though, so it would be false advertising if I labeled moonshine with it.

Thomas Fjellstrom

Member #476

June 2000

Quote:

There is one grammatical error in it though.

and/or is a common english saying. It literally means both at the same time. Its also in the original Allegro Disclaimer.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Edgar Reynaldo

Major Reynaldo

May 2007

I meant that 'and' should be replaced by 'or' to correct it.

If you use 'and' at the end of a list, it means all of them at once, where if you use 'or' it means any of them. Try replacing all the commas with 'and', and see what it sounds like. 'or' makes more sense.

Karadoc ~~

Member #2,749

September 2002

I agree with Edgar. Although "and" makes sense, it isn't the right kind of sense. It should be "or". Even though the disclaimer may have had "and" I think it would be better with "or".

-----------

Roy Underthump

Member #10,398

November 2008

I think the and/or thing is trying to convey an OR, but not an XOR (exclusive or).
"Jimmy, do you want cake OR ice cream for dessert?" "Yes!".

I love America -- I love the rights we used to have
George Carlin

OICW

Member #4,069

November 2003

I think it's common in law english.

[My website][CppReference][Pixelate][Allegators worldwide][Who's online]
"Final Fantasy XIV, I feel that anything I could say will be repeating myself, so I'm just gonna express my feelings with a strangled noise from the back of my throat. Graaarghhhh..." - Yahtzee
"Uhm... this is a.cc. Did you honestly think this thread WOULDN'T be derailed and ruined?" - BAF
"You can discuss it, you can dislike it, you can disagree with it, but that's all what you can do with it"

Kitty Cat

Member #2,815

October 2002

Quote:

If you use 'and' at the end of a list, it means all of them at once, where if you use 'or' it means any of them.

'Or' means one or the other, but not both. "Do you want to go left or right?"
'And' means both at the same time. "I want milk and cookies."

So 'and/or' means one, or the other, or both.

--
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will pee on your computer." -- Bruce Graham

Roy Underthump

Member #10,398

November 2008

Waiter at restaurant: "Would you like ketchup or perhaps mustard for your roast beef sandwich?"
I'd take that to mean I could have both.

I love America -- I love the rights we used to have
George Carlin

Johan Halmén

Member #1,550

September 2001

Air Hostess: Sir what would you like for dinner. A steak, or two steaks?
Homer Simpson: Can I have both?
http://www.allegro.cc/files/attachment/597654

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Years of thorough research have revealed that the red "x" that closes a window, really isn't red, but white on red background.

Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest.

SiegeLord

Member #7,827

October 2006

Quote:

'Or' means one or the other, but not both. "Do you want to go left or right?"

No, it doesn't.

"Either A or B" means that.

Quote:

I'd take that to mean I could have both.

And you would be right, or the waiter is lying.

The English language has no ambiguity in meaning here. 'Or' always means the logical disjunction. 'And' always means logical conjunction. They are never taken in the sense of set union/intersection.

When someone asks "Do you want A or B?" and you answer "Yes", you are saying that you will be satisfied by A, B alone or both of them together, as per the deductive logic rules. Usually people want to be more specific than that, and specify which one of those three options they actually want.

Now, as to the Allegro Brew disclaimer, the right word to use there is 'and'. If it were 'or', then it'd imply that the speaker takes upon himself only at least one of those clauses. I.e. this scenario would be possible: he'd take the responsibility for the effects on your dog, computer, but not the other ones. If you use the word 'and' you are implying that he has to not take responsibility for every single one of those clauses, which is exactly what the legalese is trying to convey.

Thus, it's correct as is.

EDIT: In C:

1bool resp_for_you;
2bool resp_for_computer;
3bool resp_for_sanity;
4bool resp_for_dog;
5bool resp_for_anything_else;
6 
7//what the sentence is saying now
8//all of the above bools have to be false for the statement to be true
9bool disclaimer_true = !resp_for_you && !resp_for_computer && !resp_for_sanity && !resp_for_dog && !resp_for_anything_else;
10 
11//same version with or
12//only one of the above bools has to be false for the statement to be true
13disclaimer_true = !resp_for_you || !resp_for_computer || !resp_for_sanity || !resp_for_dog || !resp_for_anything_else;
14 
15//An equivalent of the first sentence
16//Roughly: It won't be the case that I accept responsibility for effects on you, your computer, your sanity, your dog or anything else.
17disclaimer_true = !(resp_for_you || resp_for_computer || resp_for_sanity || resp_for_dog || resp_for_anything_else);

"For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow."-Ecclesiastes 1:18
[SiegeLord's Abode][Codes]:[DAllegro5]:[RustAllegro]

Matthew Leverton

Supreme Loser

January 1999

Nerd fight! This is funny.

True or false: Nerds are so easy to drive crazy.

OH NO!>! It makes no sense!!! How could it be True AND False at the SAME TIME!? Some one save me from the contradictions!

I'm going to answer YES on every True or False test from now on just to preserve the dignity of my beautiful language! Principles for the win!

Quote:

I.e. this scenario would be possible: he'd take the responsibility for the effects on your dog, computer, but not the other ones

Ah, but he's the speaker and he controls the meaning! In this case, he might choose to use the ALL definition of OR, as you've described it!

Okay, let's not be ridiculous. The word or has an imprecise meaning in the English language. This isn't some logical programming operator. The context often makes it clear what is meant. Also, when spoken (out loud), the emphasis can supply the meaning.

In every day English, like it or not [teehee], "I want A or B" generally implies an exclusive or. There are ways to make it disambiguous.

I want A and/or B
I want either A or B
I want one of the following: A or B
I want one or more of the following: A, B, and C

Regarding the "legal" phrase at hand, one could easily argue that "I don't accept responsibility for you and your dog" means that if only the dog is hurt, responsibility is accepted! Because the entire clause wasn't satisfied! So when dealing with legal matters, you can throw away your nifty little C analogies and just worry about how it is interpreted by the courts.

--
RTFM | Follow Me on Google+ | I know 10 people

Thomas Harte

Member #33

April 2000

Quote:

I disagree. I take 'and' to mean that he does not accept any responsibility for any effects ... that this beer may have on [every single one of the following items]. In other words, if the same effect experienced by every one of them then responsibility is disclaimed. If an effect happens to, for example, just one of them, then he does not disclaim liability.

If you drink the beer and subsequently become overwhelmingly dizzy then it has not had an effect on "you, your computer, your sanity, your dog, and anything else you can think of". Hence, responsibility is not disclaimed for the dizziness.

That said, the Oxford comma means that it is probably American English rather than British English and I guess there may be a cultural difference if the topic is really as controversial as it appears to be. Though I hadn't otherwise thought there was.

EDIT: Ha, I law nerded it up. Per Georgia case law (Eckman v the State - the first example I could find), requiring that "the defendant knew a crime was being committed and that the defendant knowingly and intentionally participated or helped in the crime's commission" means that "the jury has the duty to acquit the defendant if the State fails to satisfy either of the two prongs of its evidentiary burden, i.e., if the State does not prove the defendant knew a crime was being committed or if the State does not prove the defendant knowingly and intentionally participated in or helped in the commission of the crime". Does that clear things up at all?

[My site] [Tetrominoes]

SiegeLord

Member #7,827

October 2006

Matthew Leverton said:

OH NO!>! It makes no sense!!! How could it be True AND False at the SAME TIME!? Some one save me from the contradictions!

Huh? Your sentence is saying that that sentence is either true or false. Let the truth of that sentense be the variable s. Here is what your sentence is saying:

$<math>\neg s \lor s</math>$

That does not imply that s is both true and false... the sentence would be true if s is true, or false. Your sentence just doesn't really say all that much.

Quote:

Ah, but he's the speaker and he controls the meaning!

No? Words control meaning, no matter who speaks them.

Quote:

Yes it is. Most any, probably all, English sentences can be mapped relatively unambiguously to logical statements.

Quote:

In every day English, like it or not [teehee], "I want A or B" generally implies an exclusive or.

No it doesn't. Your understanding of everyday English is incorrect. That sentence is ambiguous (in the sense of what exactly you will get), and you cannot fault the receiver of that sentence for giving you any of the three possible choices that satisfy you.

Quote:

No... you are completely misunderstanding the sentence. The sentence is equivalent to saying: I don't accept responsibility for you and I don't accept responsibility for your dog. If your dog is hurt, and you don't take responsibility, the sentence is still correct, as you satisfy the first clause (you weren't hurt so there's no responsibility to take) and you satisfy the second clause, you did not take the responsibility for the dog. If you want it to be the case that if a dog is hurt, you must take responsibility, then you should have said: "I will take the responsibility for your dog."

Quote:

So when dealing with legal matters, you can throw away your nifty little C analogies and just worry about how it is interpreted by the courts.

Deites help us if the courts ignore the rules of logic.

Thomas Harte said:

Huh? How do you get that from the sentence?

EDIT: Edited a bunch of times. k, done.

"For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow."-Ecclesiastes 1:18
[SiegeLord's Abode][Codes]:[DAllegro5]:[RustAllegro]

Thomas Harte

Member #33

April 2000

I would parse it as:

Quote:

I do not accept any responsibility for any effects, adverse or otherwise, that this beer may have on:

you;
your computer;
your sanity;
your dog; and
anything else you can think of.

Drink it at your own risk.

From any useful point of view, "drink it at your own risk" is pretty clear, but just in terms of 'and' versus 'or', the 'and' joins the things that need to be affected for him to disclaim responsibility. So it's all or nothing. It's not the same as "...may have on anything from the set composed of:".

On the plus side, thank goodness he didn't write "any affects," - imagine the uproar!

[My site] [Tetrominoes]

Roy Underthump

Member #10,398

November 2008

Couldn't you affect a drunken slur?

I love America -- I love the rights we used to have
George Carlin

Evert

Member #794

November 2000

Quote:

Most any, probably all, English sentences can be mapped relatively unambiguously to logical statements.

Sure they can! That's why we can talk to computers in natural language rather than formalised and precise computer languages.
No, wait...

Matthew hit the nail on the head. Human language, especially in every-day colloquial-speak, are imprecise and ambiguous.

Arthur Kalliokoski

Second in Command

February 2005

{"name":"416272313_1a953b94b4.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/a\/6ac34a96f2c00d89bd4db07ec2a1a03d.jpg","w":333,"h":500,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/a\/6ac34a96f2c00d89bd4db07ec2a1a03d"}

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Neil Black

Member #7,867

October 2006

Quote:

Matthew hit the nail on the head. Human language, especially in every-day colloquial-speak, ~~are~~ is imprecise and ambiguous.

Fixed

SiegeLord

Member #7,827

October 2006

They are not imprecise. Any imprecision is the equivalent of a typo when you are spelling. Like the double negative, or the "couldn't care less" et al.

Just because you can't speak it precisely, doesn't mean it's an imprecise language.

"For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow."-Ecclesiastes 1:18
[SiegeLord's Abode][Codes]:[DAllegro5]:[RustAllegro]

Evert

Member #794

November 2000

Quote:

They are not imprecise. Any imprecision is the equivalent of a typo when you are spelling.

No. Just no.
Human language by their very nature are vague and ambiguous with shades of meaning expressed by different words. Just pick up a dictionary and have a look at different meanings and nuances a word can have, or a list of (near) synonyms.

Matthew Leverton

Supreme Loser

January 1999

This is a valid, yet ambiguous English sentence:

He gave her dog food.

When spoken, the emphasis gives it away. But written, it is unclear.

Of course you can make it more verbose to make it clear. But that doesn't make the basic sentence invalid or incorrect.

Quote:

Ah, but he's the speaker and he controls the meaning!

No? Words control meaning, no matter who speaks them.

Maybe you misunderstand what I meant, but that doesn't change what I meant! I know what I mean to say regardless of what is said.

You must struggle to cope with society if every time a silly American says that he "could care less" you force yourself to misunderstand what he meant ("couldn't care less").

Words don't control meaning. People do. Words are just something people use to express themselves.

If I say to somebody, "I'm so mad at you," the words would indicate that I'm upset at that person. But how I say those words could make him understand that I mean the exact opposite. (Sarcasm.)

As Evert said, "That's why we can talk to computers in natural language rather than formalised and precise computer languages." I don't know how I can put it in any better way for you to understand than that.

Computer languages would be unnecessary if English were so precise that a computer could follow its instructions.

--
RTFM | Follow Me on Google+ | I know 10 people