Slashdot Mirror

Well, I'm sorry, but I will NEVER be able to consider an interpreted language useful for writing "real" applications. If it won't compile then it's just a scripting tool.

dictionary.com strikes again:
application is defined, in the American Heritage Dictionary, in the following fashion: "Of or being a computer program designed for a specific task or use: applications software for a missile guidance system."

In other words any program you have written for any specific purpose is an application. This includes my ~25 line perl script which does nothing but check to make sure email addresses are something like valid, and prints them to an output file if they are, and doesn't if they're not. It's not exactly complex, but it is, technically, an application.

It gets even better when you use the definition from WordNet: 3: a program that gives a computer instructions that provide the user with tools to accomplish a task; "he has tried several different word processing applications" [syn: application program, application s programme]. This could be something as trivial as a script which echoes something to the screen, like the date and time. How many lines of perl does that take if you only do one semicolon per line?

Finally, as listed in the above-linked application program is the following segment of definition: " (Or "application", "app") A complete, self-contained program that performs a specific function directly for the user." It also says that One distinction between an application program and the operating system is that applications always run in "user mode" (or "non-privileged mode"), while operating systems and related utilities may run in "supervisor mode" (or "privileged mode").

I hope this clears up somewhat what an application is. If there are any other words you don't understand in this post, please use dictionary.com to clear things up. It will save you the embarrassment and me the trouble of the tedium of your correction.

Well, I'm sorry, but I will NEVER be able to consider an interpreted language useful for writing "real" applications. If it won't compile then it's just a scripting tool.

dictionary.com strikes again:
application is defined, in the American Heritage Dictionary, in the following fashion: "Of or being a computer program designed for a specific task or use: applications software for a missile guidance system."

In other words any program you have written for any specific purpose is an application. This includes my ~25 line perl script which does nothing but check to make sure email addresses are something like valid, and prints them to an output file if they are, and doesn't if they're not. It's not exactly complex, but it is, technically, an application.

It gets even better when you use the definition from WordNet: 3: a program that gives a computer instructions that provide the user with tools to accomplish a task; "he has tried several different word processing applications" [syn: application program, application s programme]. This could be something as trivial as a script which echoes something to the screen, like the date and time. How many lines of perl does that take if you only do one semicolon per line?

Finally, as listed in the above-linked application program is the following segment of definition: " (Or "application", "app") A complete, self-contained program that performs a specific function directly for the user." It also says that One distinction between an application program and the operating system is that applications always run in "user mode" (or "non-privileged mode"), while operating systems and related utilities may run in "supervisor mode" (or "privileged mode").

I hope this clears up somewhat what an application is. If there are any other words you don't understand in this post, please use dictionary.com to clear things up. It will save you the embarrassment and me the trouble of the tedium of your correction.

Well, I'm sorry, but I will NEVER be able to consider an interpreted language useful for writing "real" applications. If it won't compile then it's just a scripting tool.

dictionary.com strikes again:
application is defined, in the American Heritage Dictionary, in the following fashion: "Of or being a computer program designed for a specific task or use: applications software for a missile guidance system."

In other words any program you have written for any specific purpose is an application. This includes my ~25 line perl script which does nothing but check to make sure email addresses are something like valid, and prints them to an output file if they are, and doesn't if they're not. It's not exactly complex, but it is, technically, an application.

It gets even better when you use the definition from WordNet: 3: a program that gives a computer instructions that provide the user with tools to accomplish a task; "he has tried several different word processing applications" [syn: application program, application s programme]. This could be something as trivial as a script which echoes something to the screen, like the date and time. How many lines of perl does that take if you only do one semicolon per line?

Finally, as listed in the above-linked application program is the following segment of definition: " (Or "application", "app") A complete, self-contained program that performs a specific function directly for the user." It also says that One distinction between an application program and the operating system is that applications always run in "user mode" (or "non-privileged mode"), while operating systems and related utilities may run in "supervisor mode" (or "privileged mode").

I hope this clears up somewhat what an application is. If there are any other words you don't understand in this post, please use dictionary.com to clear things up. It will save you the embarrassment and me the trouble of the tedium of your correction.

Well, I'm sorry, but I will NEVER be able to consider an interpreted language useful for writing "real" applications. If it won't compile then it's just a scripting tool.

dictionary.com strikes again:
application is defined, in the American Heritage Dictionary, in the following fashion: "Of or being a computer program designed for a specific task or use: applications software for a missile guidance system."

In other words any program you have written for any specific purpose is an application. This includes my ~25 line perl script which does nothing but check to make sure email addresses are something like valid, and prints them to an output file if they are, and doesn't if they're not. It's not exactly complex, but it is, technically, an application.

It gets even better when you use the definition from WordNet: 3: a program that gives a computer instructions that provide the user with tools to accomplish a task; "he has tried several different word processing applications" [syn: application program, application s programme]. This could be something as trivial as a script which echoes something to the screen, like the date and time. How many lines of perl does that take if you only do one semicolon per line?

Finally, as listed in the above-linked application program is the following segment of definition: " (Or "application", "app") A complete, self-contained program that performs a specific function directly for the user." It also says that One distinction between an application program and the operating system is that applications always run in "user mode" (or "non-privileged mode"), while operating systems and related utilities may run in "supervisor mode" (or "privileged mode").

I hope this clears up somewhat what an application is. If there are any other words you don't understand in this post, please use dictionary.com to clear things up. It will save you the embarrassment and me the trouble of the tedium of your correction.

Go on, pretty please? At the very least, please read the second definition here.

Palm/Pocket PC - Capabilities & Reality. Rebuttal from a CasioE100 Owner:

a) Don't compare processors... the Palm does everything quickly and efficiently with 16mhz. The Pocket PCs are 133mhz+....never intended to be an MP3 player.

I have run 'tests' with a coworker who runs a PalmIII/V, we did blanket searches on a 'word' contained in our PIM databases. I retrieved my data faster on every attempt, regardless of 'type'. My device has 16 megs (8RAM/8ROM) with about 5-6MB of PIM data. Admittedly NOT scientific, but it was enough to convince the both of us.

b) Palm Multi-platform friendly. The Pocket PC is all about Windows...iPaq can run linux, and Slashdot runs stories about it regularly).

I have CF Ethernet. To send files back/forth I simply use FTP/SMTP. The Pocket PC does not sync with any Non-Windows PC PIM Software (that I am aware of). I can move files to the CasioE100 without any trouble from _ANY_ TCP/IP capable box.

c) The Pocket PC has painfully little application support. VNC? SSH? Telnet?....generally more expensive than Palm.

VNC
Telnet
SSH

There is plenty of software available. More than I can even try.

d) No wireless support yet for Pocket PC...To me at least, there's no point getting a media rich Palm device if I can't use it to access the net.
CF Modem that I use togetherwith my phone

e) Cost, Cost, Cost. You can get Palms for as little as $149 ... NEW. Lower costs mean more accessibility to the geeks that write the code. :)

You might have me on this one.

CasioE100: $600
CF Modem: $69 (MS Rebate deal)
CF Ethernet: $180
2 x 96MB CFRAM: $300 ea.
Nokia Cell Phone: $200 (or so)
Having the most technically capable, multimedia, wireless, portable Palm/Pocket (whatever) PC/PIM: Priceless.

NOTE: I bought the device based on what it _CAN_ do by leveraging the OUTSTANDING hardware in a Palm/Pocket PC (at its time 10mos.) ago. I am not a great lover of M$, but their still is no comparing this device to _ANY_ Palm product. Please be realistic and leave the Anti-M$ zealotry out of your analysis.

The EULA specifically permits using the CD software "solely in connection with playing the Game via an authorized and fully-paid Account." So, if you're using the CD to play on the emulator, you're in violation of clause 7 of the EULA.

Definitions for authorized (From dictionary.com)

1. To grant authority or power to.
2. To give permission for; sanction: the city agency that authorizes construction projects.
3. To be sufficient grounds for; justify.

On the other hand, if they change the agreement to read "Servers authorized by Sony" or Verison or whatever will be dictated by Sony's agreement with Verison, then yeah, that part of the shrinkwrap might actually mean something.

And, HackerQuest is in violation of clause 9, which specifically states: "You may not use our intellectual property rights contained in the Game or the Software to create or provide any other means through which the Game may be played by others, as through server emulators."

Except, as someone else mentioned, in Europe, where such activities are expressly protected, for the purposes of interoperability. Remember that shrinkwrap agreements lose their power where prohibited by local, state, or federal law. This applies internationally, as well.

Thus, if HackerQuest used any of the original code (copyrighted), or any of the characters or names (trademarked) owned by Sony, they can be sued under this license, and are likely to be found in violation. Of course, they could also be in violation of the copyright, and I expect Sony registered the copyright. In that case, HackerQuest could be in the hole for $150,000 statutory damages for each instance of copying code. (See 17 USC Section 504, and note that the statutory damages have been increased.

(Above paragraph edited for links)

I'm sure they did, but your "thus" is inappropriate here. The 17 USC Section 504 that you quote doesn't apply to their reverse engineering under Euro law. I do agree that if they used names, terms, et cetera which are copyrighted, then they could get in a lot of trouble. I don't think they're copying code, though; I think they're duplicating function. That's a little different.

The EULA specifically permits using the CD software "solely in connection with playing the Game via an authorized and fully-paid Account." So, if you're using the CD to play on the emulator, you're in violation of clause 7 of the EULA.

Definitions for authorized (From dictionary.com)

1. To grant authority or power to.
2. To give permission for; sanction: the city agency that authorizes construction projects.
3. To be sufficient grounds for; justify.

On the other hand, if they change the agreement to read "Servers authorized by Sony" or Verison or whatever will be dictated by Sony's agreement with Verison, then yeah, that part of the shrinkwrap might actually mean something.

And, HackerQuest is in violation of clause 9, which specifically states: "You may not use our intellectual property rights contained in the Game or the Software to create or provide any other means through which the Game may be played by others, as through server emulators."

Except, as someone else mentioned, in Europe, where such activities are expressly protected, for the purposes of interoperability. Remember that shrinkwrap agreements lose their power where prohibited by local, state, or federal law. This applies internationally, as well.

Thus, if HackerQuest used any of the original code (copyrighted), or any of the characters or names (trademarked) owned by Sony, they can be sued under this license, and are likely to be found in violation. Of course, they could also be in violation of the copyright, and I expect Sony registered the copyright. In that case, HackerQuest could be in the hole for $150,000 statutory damages for each instance of copying code. (See 17 USC Section 504, and note that the statutory damages have been increased.

(Above paragraph edited for links)

I'm sure they did, but your "thus" is inappropriate here. The 17 USC Section 504 that you quote doesn't apply to their reverse engineering under Euro law. I do agree that if they used names, terms, et cetera which are copyrighted, then they could get in a lot of trouble. I don't think they're copying code, though; I think they're duplicating function. That's a little different.

see: sarcarm. Half of the attacks on Microsoft from people on Slashdot seem to be personal attacks on Bill Gates.

additionally, you seemed to miss my point (which was 'successful people/companies/etc. keep getting jabbed.. blah blah blah')

anywho, try not to take things so seriously. slashdot is only as real as irc.
-legolas

i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...

Inflammable

Me, I'm happier with the +es pluralisation of words ending in o than the +s ending:

Potatoes - good
Hoboes - good
Solos - not good
Legos - grim.

Only reason I can come up with is that the +s pluralisation tends to lead me to (think about) mispronouncing the word.(Cue for a Lin-ux / Line - ux subthread here...)

So, no, I can't deal with it. Sorry. Have to protest this one.

Me, I'm happier with the +es pluralisation of words ending in o than the +s ending:

Potatoes - good
Hoboes - good
Solos - not good
Legos - grim.

Only reason I can come up with is that the +s pluralisation tends to lead me to (think about) mispronouncing the word.(Cue for a Lin-ux / Line - ux subthread here...)

So, no, I can't deal with it. Sorry. Have to protest this one.

Me, I'm happier with the +es pluralisation of words ending in o than the +s ending:

Potatoes - good
Hoboes - good
Solos - not good
Legos - grim.

Only reason I can come up with is that the +s pluralisation tends to lead me to (think about) mispronouncing the word.(Cue for a Lin-ux / Line - ux subthread here...)

So, no, I can't deal with it. Sorry. Have to protest this one.

Etymology involves the search for the historical roots of a word.

I'm not sure what Eyntomology is. Not trying to be a dick, but when you're talking about language precision is important.

Sausage King of Chicago

It's all about offices. Not only does this allow you to surf pr0n, but it cuts down on noise dramatically. It's best to be paired up in an office with the coworker that you work with the most. Face time is dramatically important, and you can convey a lot more information that way. You (me) also tend to slack off less when there is a human nearby who is also working.

The next factor is furniture ergonomics, a word vastly overused but also a concept dramatically underapplied. I am a BIG MOFO (6'7", 350 lbs) and my office furniture is never the right size. An office willing to buy you furniture that fits you is a must.

Finally, I come up upon the topic of lighting. When I worked for Tivoli Systems I shared an office with two people, then with one person, then had my own. In the latter two circumstances the lighting was to my specs; A desk lamp for close lighting and a halogen torchiere for room lighting. One of them is enough to cast a good, broad-spectrum light (or so it seems) with enough light to find your way around the office without falling over things, but not enough to make your eyes tired. The desk lamp is a necessity to provide enough light to see documents by and to provide enough light to where staring at your monitor isn't too high-contrast, but not enough to where you have to crank the brightness beyond the point where black is no longer black, but a dark grey. Having proper contrast is a must.

You also need a bookshelf, in my ever so humble opinion. While I am constantly using digital documents (you can search them, after all) I frequently turn to books from ORA or Microsoft Press (I work in a Microsoft-centric shop at the moment) for in-depth information. You need a place to keep these books that isn't your desk. Avoid clutter when possible, but when you need to lay out a lot of docs at once, nothing beats a desk.

OT Side note: The thinkgeek ad I'm looking at right now spells "movie premiere" without the trailing "E". Give me a break, folks.

This was the first post that had anything to do with the article. It'd be awfully hard to be redundant in that position. If you don't know what one of the moderation terms means, look it up before using it against people.

This is where I'll choose to make my only comment on this issue on slashdot. Yeah, right.

religion
n. Abbr. rel., relig.

1. 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
   2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

What I'd like to bring up is item 4. If you use this particular definition, then Science is a religion, of sorts.

Personally, I do not advocate teaching Creationism in schools, except to mention it, without derision. By refusing to even share the points supporting creationism in school, you become as bad as the people who want to replace evolutionism with creationism. If you condemn them as well, then you are worse than they are.

Science is a belief system founded on what you believe you have experienced. Whether you are correct or not is outside the scope of this article. Religion, likewise, is a belief system founded on what you believe you have experienced. I believe that it is wrong to lightly gloss over these issues in school.

Personally, I am a Scientist. I don't believe anything I read, and only half of what I hear. I want to believe a lot of things I read, but I never feel all that cheated when they turn out not to be true because I'm skeptical at all times. Let's not inspect my social life as a result of this statement, I'm just trying to say that I'm not into the whole religion thing, except insofar as Science (with a capital "S", even) can be considered a type of religion.

And now comes time for the opinion piece: The thing that puts Science ahead of other belief systems is that it changes, forcing you to remain flexible and open-minded. What we know about science today may be discarded and replaced tomorrow. Science is a religion of approximations. The universe is god, and we are trying to get to know it better.

Isn't that what most of us are after anyway?

Well, as a FREE American I'd say you're paying the price for the short sighted development of the system in your country.
How many domains are actually registered under ".us" as a domain?

Exactly, the top level domains are Global in scope, so it is only right that a global body is responsible for settling disputes

So, trolling loser, if you don't like a "FOREIGN power" having influence over you, then choose to use your national domain.

Really, never ceases to amaze me how parochial some Americans can be. (link is to dictionary.com, I'm sure you'll need to look up the meaning.;)

Nope, "loosen" is correct. :)
</correction>

I used to think as you did, that piracy involved some sort of monetary element (i.e. stealing cargo) but according to the defination of piracy, it is any infraction against a copyright.

I think the use of the word 'aura' in the context of this technology is probably:

"An invisible breath, emanation, or radiation."

and not what your ex-girlfriend thinks she saw:

"A distinctive but intangible quality that seems to surround a person or thing; atmosphere"

Don't confuse new-age metaphysical terms with scientific definitions. This is a very dangerous thing. Both parties tend to get pretty pissed off.

galley proof
n. Printing

A proof taken from composed type before page composition to allow for the detection and correction of errors.

galley proof
n. Printing

A proof taken from composed type before page composition to allow for the detection and correction of errors.

I think that the AC referred to "definately", which is written "definitely". An you're right: I had to look it up too as a native Dutch speaker. :-)
"Jazeker...er zijn er nog nederlandstaligen op slashdot"

You gotta admint Carnivore is a pretty piss-poor choice...

Calling electricity a theory is a fallacy. A theory (sorry, I don't have websters on me, had to use dictionary.com) is "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture." http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-b in/dict.pl?term=theory

Yeah, it's easy to prove your point if you use the wrong definition. Dictionary.com provided 4 definitions, and you picked the fourth. The first definition, the one used in the context of scientific theories, is:

1. • a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.
   • b. Such knowledge or such a system.

A theory is a conjecture. Electricity may once have been a theory (back in Ben Franklin's day) but it can't be considered that any longer.

Plenty of well-established physics is referred to as theory, such as the Special and General Theories of Relativity.

Calling electricity a theory is a fallacy. A theory (sorry, I don't have websters on me, had to use dictionary.com) is "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture." http://www.dictionary.com/cgi -bin/dict.pl?term=theory

A theory is a conjecture. Electricity may once have been a theory (back in Ben Franklin's day) but it can't be considered that any longer.

Evolution is still a theory; still a conjecture.

The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.

which dumbed down is manipulation of frequencies and amplitues (et al) so therefore computated labels can be generated.

This will also allow artists to break free from a single label because their various songs will advertantly or inadvertantly fit into their various genres. (as well as correctly label the new mtv shit band forcing them to realize they are in fact shit, manufactured by corporate bigheads looking to destroy the meaning of music: and NO N'Sync, you are NOT the next Beatles mislabled as a boy-band. The Beatles never wore silver, light reflecting, winsheild visors as clothing)

quothe you:
You obviously care about money more than freedom, and I pity that.

quote me:
consenting adults should be free to enter any arrangement or agreement they choose, as long as doesn't directly harm anyone else.

so which of those two world sounds freer to you? you'd like to regulate private sexual behaviour - and i think that what i do in the privacy of my own home and with whom (ob: consenting adult) and for what reason is NOYB, pal. why don't you read what i actually said, before you react.

i also said that i agreed that what apple is doing is stupid, for what it's worth. and suing news sources is obviously of a completely different category - any news written in good faith (or more to the point, not written in demonstrably bad faith) should be legal without restraint. but if two free people/legal entities enter into a contract, that contract should be legally enforceable, period (ob: as long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else).

quothe you:
You cannot under any circumstances make a legal contract to do an illegal thing.

that's what they call a tautology : a trivial truth. legal != illegal. what i'm saying is, what business does the government have regulating business or other exchanges between consenting adults (ob: as long as it doesn't harm anyone else)?

Absolutely not.

Bzzzt. "Average" is a generic term, "mean" is a specific term. Just like they teach little kids, modes, means, and medians are all forms of averages. Although in general (non-technical) usage average equates to mean, in technical usage it is non-specific:

It can be used to refer to mean, mode, median, and other, more esoteric averages.

But you cannot shut down all pizza parlors because they can be used for money laundering.

And Napster wouldn't be shut down if they only trafficked in legally licensed music. The point is that just because a service might engage in both legal and illegal activity, doesn't make the illegal activity OK.

Perhaps you meant to construct an argument instead of introducing a logical fallacy.

Perhaps you meant to think about what I said instead of stating a non sequitur.

--

Trace the theft. At what point in my downloading a song an artist did not agree to did I deny someone property? My crime is copyright infringement which is not theft. If it was theft, then in the legal briefs filed, Napster would be accused of abetting in theft not in assisting piracy (using definition #2, not #1).

unlikelihood (<snip>)
n.
1. The state of being unlikely or improbable; improbability.
2. Something unlikely.

Second, I'm not ascribing malice to anyone. Neither Doubleclick nor the RIAA are acting out of a desire to hurt anyone. Their motive is nothing more nor less than profit. I accuse them of being cavalier, callous, avaricious, rapacious and a host of other sins. But not malicious.

Second, I'm not ascribing malice to anyone. Neither Doubleclick nor the RIAA are acting out of a desire to hurt anyone. Their motive is nothing more nor less than profit. I accuse them of being cavalier, callous, avaricious, rapacious and a host of other sins. But not malicious.

Second, I'm not ascribing malice to anyone. Neither Doubleclick nor the RIAA are acting out of a desire to hurt anyone. Their motive is nothing more nor less than profit. I accuse them of being cavalier, callous, avaricious, rapacious and a host of other sins. But not malicious.

Second, I'm not ascribing malice to anyone. Neither Doubleclick nor the RIAA are acting out of a desire to hurt anyone. Their motive is nothing more nor less than profit. I accuse them of being cavalier, callous, avaricious, rapacious and a host of other sins. But not malicious.

Second, I'm not ascribing malice to anyone. Neither Doubleclick nor the RIAA are acting out of a desire to hurt anyone. Their motive is nothing more nor less than profit. I accuse them of being cavalier, callous, avaricious, rapacious and a host of other sins. But not malicious.

http://www.dictionary .com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=Corinthian%27s

-DCookie

zvezda
Translates directly to star.

Zarya
A city of north-central Nigeria south-southwest of Kano. It is a processing center in a cotton-growing region. Population, 267,300. This is not dawn as implied by our friend DigitalDragon.

Grammar nazi's conclusions:
If you search for zvezda at dictionary.com, then you will get over 2 MB of zip codes. That is not nice. DigitalDragon is also not nice for supplying false information.

Electromigration doesn't take place until the chips reach about 170C. This is about 338 fahrenheight. Water boils at 212. Electromigration is a physical phenomenon DIRECTLY linked to heat - it CANNOT occur at low temperatures. It is also worth noting that at around those temperatures the soldering bonds of the PCB starts to break down. But you don't have to take my word for it, look it up for yourself.

One of my electrical engineering professors has a old transistor collection, and you can see a decay in Beta (B) of these devices, so the gain characteristics have changed a fair bit.

That's probably due more to the fact that old transistors only had a sealed metal top on them which due to vibration or over time can become loose (not loose enough for you to notice) and allow the atmosphere to leak in, oxidizing the silicon.

This is _much_ more of a problem in a analog transistor, where the preformance is supposed to be linear.

That's total bunk. Maybe if you had a thick enough marker you could plot it log-log, but "Real Transistors" are distinctly non-linear - see the graph half-way down the page over here. You'll note that the transistor has an area which is fairly linear, but saying that the output of a transistor is linear for any given input is false.

If you overclock, you up the clock rate of a CMOS process. Power consumption goes up correspondingly.

It can't, because the chip's resistance hasn't changed - you didn't increase voltage or current, nor did you reduce the total impedance in the chip (it's the same circuit!) How can power thus increase? Ohm's law doesn't change simply because you increase the frequency.

However, going from 2.2 to 2.4 volts will - assume it was consuming 50W of energy @ 2.2 volts. That means it needs 22 amps. so the chip has a total impedance of 0.1 ohms. Using Ohm's Law, we deduce that an increase to 2.4 volts will give us 24 amps of current - nearly 10% more current!

Chmrr,

The material that covers the axons of the neurons is myelin, not glial cells (see http://www.dictionary.com/cgi -bin/dict.pl?term=myelin.

Myelin allows the chemical-electrical transmission to happen in a more "productive" manner. Faster and better neurotransmissions from one neuron to the next.

Glial cells are the support structure, but myelin is separate. Glial cells are not neurons. I guess now their finding that Glial cells do more than just support and can influence neurons cells in certain ways. If you ask me this isn't that extrodinary, because the more glial cells you have around the neurons, the better off things are so its obvious the glial cells influence neurons in some way. I guess we're just getting more knowledgable about how.

Maybe by the time I get this post in someone will have explained it better but I'll add my 2 cents anyways and expand on Chmrr's explanation. The computer mouse analogy works well. The mouse is a neuron. The big plasic chunk is the body of the neuron, and the tail is the axon. On the body are little strands which extend out to "touch" the axons of other neurons. When the neuron gets enough impulses from other neurons through the little strands (called dendrites) the neuron body fires a charge down the axon (mouse cord) off to one other neuron.

since the word "verb" is actually a noun, it's been 'verbed' too!

What happens if I post marked up text ? Will they change my text ?

That would be changing what I say. While my work is placed and published into the public domain, it does not mean they can change what I say - if they change my hyperlinks - they are changing what I say! Is that allowable ?

What happens if I post marked up text ? Will they change my text ?

That would be changing what I say. While my work is placed and published into the public domain, it does not mean they can change what I say - if they change my hyperlinks - they are changing what I say! Is that allowable ?

What happens if I post marked up text ? Will they change my text ?

That would be changing what I say. While my work is placed and published into the public domain, it does not mean they can change what I say - if they change my hyperlinks - they are changing what I say! Is that allowable ?

What happens if I post marked up text ? Will they change my text ?

That would be changing what I say. While my work is placed and published into the public domain, it does not mean they can change what I say - if they change my hyperlinks - they are changing what I say! Is that allowable ?

What happens if I post marked up text ? Will they change my text ?

That would be changing what I say. While my work is placed and published into the public domain, it does not mean they can change what I say - if they change my hyperlinks - they are changing what I say! Is that allowable ?

What happens if I post marked up text ? Will they change my text ?

That would be changing what I say. While my work is placed and published into the public domain, it does not mean they can change what I say - if they change my hyperlinks - they are changing what I say! Is that allowable ?