Slashdot Mirror

Right here ya cunt https://scholarship.rollins.ed...

Page 14 of the PDF, first paragraph. They found the opposite of the original study.

http://myweb.rollins.edu/jsiry/map-china-us_superimposed.jpg

More precisely, the acronym is W.O.P.R

as requested a comp sci program without most of the theory you mentioned. http://www.rollins.edu/holt/prospects/ug/pgm_compu terscience.shtml

You realize, of course, that people are criticizing a government that is absolutely convinced that the values and beliefs they hold are the ones that should be universally observed, and they WILL KILL YOU for it?
I think you can see the difference here... Besides until you can tell me you've read the Analects, as well as the various other works of classical Chinese scholasticism, I don't believe you're in ANY position to claim an understanding of Chinese ways. Period. ~a - b.a. History, focus: China.

They (the army) are far more likely to be sympathetic to your cause if you aren't shooting at them. Or shooting at others, for that matter.

Indeed. I wonder whether this guy would have fared better with an AK-47.

If you worked for Culturecom then surely you must remember the EasyReader electronic book that they have been developing for years (I still have one). I suspect they bought the company to replace the Via Dragon chip in the original version and put a Transmeata into their next release of EasyReader (a colour version maybe?) for the China market.

God luv ya, AC, and perect timing on a Friday afternoon to boot.

Seriously: I read this submission and couldn't get that famous image of that student in China standing up against a tank out of my mind. Gosh, you think that fellow went home at the end of the day and blogged about it? Ooh, ooh, I know, I know, he posted to Democratic Underground, making a poll and asking for consensus...

BTW, the grinding sound you hear is John Peter Zenger tumbling about in his grave.

Here's another calculation...

Check out this page about 'ghost acres'. It calculated that roughly 9.1 acres is needed to sustain one person.

1 acre is 42560 sqft... so each person needs 396396 sqft. Round it to 0.4 million sqft / person.

With 6,515,511,450 people, you will need roughly 2.6 billion million sqft for the world's population!!! A less confusing number: 2,600,000 billion.

The earth has roughly 57,500,000 sq miles of land surface... with 27,878,400 sq feet per sq miles, we have:

1,603,008,000,000,000 sqft of surface area on earth.... which is 1,603,008 billion.

Guess what? We don't have enough space to sustain everyone if everyone want to have the type of lifestyle as we have in the U.S.

in the history of icons-- I would suggest the following site as a good source of information and examples.

http://www.rollins.edu/Foreign_Lang/Russian/frame1 .html

I read a story saying the head people at Sony liked to put early prototypes of Walkmen in buckets of water to see if any bubbles came out. Bubbles == air == wasted space inside the product.

Here's some linky goodness relating that story to a Sony Handycam.

Here's some more of that wonderful Chinese technology in action:

Click

Forest for the trees, people.

People pass around Word documents because its what they know how to do. I know people who put even very short memos in Word files, then attach them to email to distribute them!

We've been talking about the paperless office for a couple of decades now, but we're actually further away from it than we've ever been -- PCs seem to create new kinds of paperwork. If we're ever going to change that, we need to get away from word processor formats (Word, FrameMaker, etc.) and page description languages (PDF, PostScript TeX) that simply reproduce the physical page on a computer screen. That means training people to change their way of thinking and stop thinking purely in terms of how a document looks. It's more imporant how a document is structured. And yeah, I'm talking the XML Party Line.

Oddly enough, Microsoft seems to be moving precisely to this model -- all the Office 2003 apps emphasize using XML to share information instead of the traditional RTF. When I went to the Office 2003 launch D&S show, one of the demos had a user writing a purchase order in MS Word. But the document wasn't DOC or RTF or even HTML -- it was an XML purchase order document type, defined in an XML Schema. Violations of the schema were flagged with those little squiggles, like for grammar and spelling errors.

This is cool because it allows people to migrate to XML document types without changing their tool set. Of course, you can't just sit down and create a random XML document -- an XML expert has to have designed the workflow, programmed the business logic, and defined the document types.

I have to wonder if Microsoft sees the full implications of this approach. I rather doubt it. Because eliminating the messiness of Microsoft proprietary formats also eliminates the need to standardize on Microsoft tools. Given a well-designed schema, that PO could have been written in any XML editor.

I especially don't think that Redmond has considered that schemas can describe ordinary word processor files too, provided only that the format is well-structured and well-documented. So if you were to just tell all your Word users to use a schema that defines the XML document type used by a competing product, then there's no longer any format-gap between the two products.

If these things happen, Microsoft's could blunder away from OS dominance in much the same way they blundered into it!