Why do so many people focus on the language difference? Headline madness, maybe.
One writing system goes through sounds, another one does not. What would the findings be if the group of chinese children would be from another area where they speak a completely different language but use the same chinese writing system?
Sound related skills are necessary for one type of system (say sonogram), but not for the other (ideogram). The ideogram system may exclusively require other skills. Surely there are language-specific dyslextic fenomena - but it is a mistake to think that the language difference is the major difference here. This is about something else entirely.
My point was simply that Wikipedia, by it's very nature, tends to lend itself to being extremely detailed in specific areas of interest that appeal to it's readership and contributor-ship.
Good question. Hugh Darwen may have some
answers
. When you do you express "don't know" as nulls, how do you, later on - when you get the null as a result in a query - get it's meaning out of:
Please mod the parent (now 1) up. This is the stuff that really matters. Insightfull, interesting, funny, relevant, you name it. Not wether or not to register at NYTimes(on top, 4! and long spun threads), or nit-picking details on numbers(same), or even people suggesting that Kevin Kelly does not know the difference between a noun and a verb. Djeez. RSI before there is some post ON-topic.
Mod this one up. It is your your duty, mandate, whatever.
[Karrade]: I find this article mostly nonsense. Its very premise is flawed: [Kelly]: The industrial age was driven by analog copies; analog copies are perfect and cheap. The information age is driven by digital copies; digital copies are perfect, fluid and free. [Karrade]: The problem with the current distribution of "analog" copies is that they are not cheap and they are not perfect.
Both Karrade ("not perfect") and Kelly ("perfect") are right, of course. Karrade appearantly - appearant from the context - takes perfect to mean technically identical. No hum, noise or other sounds added, no dynamics, or tonal content lost. Kelly - also appearant from the context - takes perfect to mean musically identical: no verses, tones lost, same lyrics, no variations added, same interpretation.
Kelly could have explained that - and he should have if he were writing for a technical audience, but he did not (explain) and he was not (writing for a technical audience).
The article may have been written from a viewpoint Karrade - and many other people here, hence my comment - are not used to, but the premise is of course entirely correct.
in what way would its message be relevant to people...remove the person entirely, and it loses much of its relevance. The message in music is not in the sound, the lyrics or the composition. The message conveyed is allways between people. By liking a piece of music (or art) you join "the group of people who like it", by not liking it you join "the group of people who do not like it".
Do you like Fractals? I do. Yet they are generated by programs that apply simple formulas to colors and points. The message the program in itself carries for me (nice algorithm, etc..) is completely irrelevant to the esthetics of the result. However: I can share the fascination, the sense of wonder about the repeating similar shapes, sometimes very bio-like, on several levels of magnification with other people.
I can very well imagine having such experiences by listening to generated music.
Focus on keeping things simple, gotcha's, limiting risks, bounds on resource usage, how to regain some control, in short taming the technologies and problems.
Please don't pay per page.
People know that for good books in limited numbers they have to pay a reasonable price,
fat books are ok only if they are stufffed with interesting things.
..has a lot more chances to survive on Europa... My point is: it is weighing risks against eachother, not eliminating one. What were the estimated chances of survival ont the moon before we learned they did? Thing is we just don't know what the real chances are. If I would have had to make this decision on my (our) very limited knowledge, I'ld decide the same, though.
"..This is to avoid the spacecraft running out of fuel and accidentally crashing into Europa which might contaminate it with any bacteria spores on Galileo. This is a real concern - Apollo 12 found bacteria on Surveyor 3 that survived two and a half years on the moon." Let me get this straight. They risk contaminating Jupiter in order to prevent contaminating Europa?
I'm speechless.
So it's expired but the owner can still use it because it still resolves? What's up with that? And especially if you're saying the owner needs to transfer it to you even if it's expired, seems to imply that they can keep the expired domain as long as they want.
This is a computerised system, it should be that as soon as it hits the expiry date (maybe +1 week at the most incase there is a delay in payment) the domain is deregistered and removed from whois, and available free for all again.
Ok. So it happened to you, it happenend to my friend. My guess is there are a lot more people, but (because of the nature of the problem) rather dispersed.
Now what can they do? Did V violate a rule one can legally enforce? It is a gray area. Now the 10E6 Euro question is: what are the rules with regard to names BEFORE expiriation?
..."Wait Listing Service" (WLS) that would allow consumers to buy domain names before they expire. As with anything that has to do with VeriSign/Network Solutions the "WLS" ain't all it cracked up to be and there is opposition from the ICANN community. I'm not sure I like the idea of auctioning off domains before they expire either. A good friend of mine is interested in using a name which has expired for allmost a year now. The previous owner has no interest anymore.
Verisign tells my friend he should ask the previous owner to use the transfer documents to transfer the domain to my friend. However, the previous owner does noet want to put any effort at all into it. "I am just not interested as to what happens to the name. That is why I let it expire. If you get it -ok with me. If not - ok with me." Now my friend is stuck. One wonders how they will handle names that did not even expire yet.
(Allmost?) everybody here seems to know what they are going to build before they start. If that were really true building the software would just be hammering out what you allready know. This is a weird assumption. There is a radical different approach to this, which in practice works remarkably well. Build what you can in a reasonable timeframe. Time up? Project finished.
If the result is promising, start a new project to improve. Stop starting new projects when the improvements don't bring enough benefits anymore.
Making money from Open Source is one often raised topic but not this time. Lets say that Open Source is a 'Good Thing (TM)'. While advocating it, you spend time and effort to convince customers and co-workers that the benefits are real. Well, that's nice. If you are right, they believe you, they follow your advice and they get the benefits. Very nice. But how do you make sure that some of those benefits will spill over to you? Or even to your company?
If I have to deal with someone on the phone, whether it's to follow up on a sales call or to correct an error at the bank, I want it to be as impersonal and as efficient as possible. The more I feel like the salesdroid or CSR is trying to "get to know me", the more irritated and introverted I get, and the more likely I am not to continue using the services.
So, the data acquisition fase (or learning mode) may be irritating, but once the droid knows you will not buy item x or category y, it will not even present those options to you, and that would be an increase in communications-efficiency. Actually I suspect you are confusing people getting personal with chit-chat and personalization of systems/businesses. However I agree with you on the Creepiness. The possibilities of abuse seem endless.
Re:1-2-5-10-20-50-100-200-500 etc..
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
I guess really minimizing the number of coins involved in random amount transactions would be 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16 - 32 - 64...etc,
maybe some math-knowledgable/.-er could calculate this. Now I'm positive I've seen this scheme before, though not in currencies.
1-2-5-10-20-50-100-200-500 etc..
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
There's no 25 cents coin. Someone tell me why, because I don't understand it. Specially since a coffe here is about 125 pesetas, which is roughly 0.75 euro. We've got 2 and 20 cents coins, but anyway, I don't know why there're no 25 cents coins.
I cannot really answer your question, but I can shed some light. In order to minimize
the number of coins to carry and
the number of coins involved in transactions
the ratios 1-2-5-etc... in denominations have been implemented in several different countries in just two different schemes:
A. 1 - 2.5 - 5 - 10 - 25 - 50 - 100 etc...
B. 1 - 2 - 5 - 10 - 20 - 50 etc...
If you take a close look at it, you'll see that both schemes are allmost completely equivalent in the minimum number of coins to use for transactions. Scheme A was in use in the Netherlands, and - appearantly in Spain. B in France and in Germany. I don't remember about the other EMU-countries (I should, I visited most of them). I do not know what the reason was, but the monetary authorities chose for B.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do so many people focus on the language difference? Headline madness, maybe.
One writing system goes through sounds, another one does not. What would the findings be if the group of chinese children would be from another area where they speak a completely different language but use the same chinese writing system?
Sound related skills are necessary for one type of system (say sonogram), but not for the other (ideogram). The ideogram system may exclusively require other skills.
Surely there are language-specific dyslextic fenomena - but it is a mistake to think that the language difference is the major difference here. This is about something else entirely.
My point was simply that Wikipedia, by it's very nature, tends to lend itself to being extremely detailed in specific areas of interest that appeal to it's readership and contributor-ship.
s/Wikipedia/Slashdot/
s/Wikipedia/Telephone directory/
s/Wikipedia/the bible/
s/Wikipedia/any document/
Senseis
Here are some nice examples of this and more. It also goes the other way.
Good question. Hugh Darwen may have some answers . When you do you express "don't know" as nulls, how do you, later on - when you get the null as a result in a query - get it's meaning out of:
- not applicable
- unknown
- false
?Ai! Too late. He already knows it.
<lurk>
Please mod the parent (now 1) up. This is the stuff that really matters. Insightfull, interesting, funny, relevant, you name it. Not wether or not to register at NYTimes(on top, 4! and long spun threads), or nit-picking details on numbers(same), or even people suggesting that Kevin Kelly does not know the difference between a noun and a verb. Djeez. RSI before there is some post ON-topic.
Mod this one up. It is your your duty, mandate, whatever.
[Karrade]: I find this article mostly nonsense. Its very premise is flawed:
[Kelly]: The industrial age was driven by analog copies; analog copies are perfect and cheap. The information age is driven by digital copies; digital copies are perfect, fluid and free.
[Karrade]: The problem with the current distribution of "analog" copies is that they are not cheap and they are not perfect.
Both Karrade ("not perfect") and Kelly ("perfect") are right, of course. Karrade appearantly - appearant from the context - takes perfect to mean technically identical. No hum, noise or other sounds added, no dynamics, or tonal content lost. Kelly - also appearant from the context - takes perfect to mean musically identical: no verses, tones lost, same lyrics, no variations added, same interpretation.
Kelly could have explained that - and he should have if he were writing for a technical audience, but he did not (explain) and he was not (writing for a technical audience).
The article may have been written from a viewpoint Karrade - and many other people here, hence my comment - are not used to, but the premise is of course entirely correct.
in what way would its message be relevant to people...remove the person entirely, and it loses much of its relevance.
The message in music is not in the sound, the lyrics or the composition. The message conveyed is allways between people. By liking a piece of music (or art) you join "the group of people who like it", by not liking it you join "the group of people who do not like it".
Do you like Fractals? I do. Yet they are generated by programs that apply simple formulas to colors and points. The message the program in itself carries for me (nice algorithm, etc..) is completely irrelevant to the esthetics of the result. However: I can share the fascination, the sense of wonder about the repeating similar shapes, sometimes very bio-like, on several levels of magnification with other people.
I can very well imagine having such experiences by listening to generated music.
Auch.
How could I have left out that one.
Thank you, annyway. I guess I was just a few minutes late.
I'ld be very interested in a ... Leashed series.
Focus on keeping things simple, gotcha's, limiting risks, bounds on resource usage, how to regain some control, in short taming the technologies and problems.
"MS Activation Leashed"
"Hackers Leashed"
"LDAP Leashed"
"Projects Leashed"
"Spam Leashed"
You get the picture.
Please don't pay per page.
People know that for good books in limited numbers they have to pay a reasonable price,
fat books are ok only if they are stufffed with interesting things.
If you're not part of the solution, try postponing it.
I guess that even using all the nuclear weapons on the earth it'll not ignite. - (Anonymous)
... but maybe some small bacteria will ignite something else.
"..This is to avoid the spacecraft running out of fuel and accidentally crashing into Europa which might contaminate it with any bacteria spores on Galileo. This is a real concern - Apollo 12 found bacteria on Surveyor 3 that survived two and a half years on the moon." Let me get this straight. They risk contaminating Jupiter in order to prevent contaminating Europa?
I'm speechless.
They'll use a Sales Contract. They're binding, ya know.
Wanna buy a piece of land on Ganymed?
Don't think that is impossible.
So the Q: what can they really put in their contract? What do V really deliver?
Hm.. I'ld mod your response up for having information, but I can't. Thanks anyway for unveiling this one.
So it's expired but the owner can still use it because it still resolves? What's up with that? And especially if you're saying the owner needs to transfer it to you even if it's expired, seems to imply that they can keep the expired domain as long as they want.
;-(
This is a computerised system, it should be that as soon as it hits the expiry date (maybe +1 week at the most incase there is a delay in payment) the domain is deregistered and removed from whois, and available free for all again.
Ok. So it happened to you, it happenend to my friend. My guess is there are a lot more people, but (because of the nature of the problem) rather dispersed.
Now what can they do? Did V violate a rule one can legally enforce? It is a gray area. Now the 10E6 Euro question is: what are the rules with regard to names BEFORE expiriation?
Nice business
..."Wait Listing Service" (WLS) that would allow consumers to buy domain names before they expire. As with anything that has to do with VeriSign/Network Solutions the "WLS" ain't all it cracked up to be and there is opposition from the ICANN community. I'm not sure I like the idea of auctioning off domains before they expire either.
A good friend of mine is interested in using a name which has expired for allmost a year now. The previous owner has no interest anymore.
Verisign tells my friend he should ask the previous owner to use the transfer documents to transfer the domain to my friend. However, the previous owner does noet want to put any effort at all into it. "I am just not interested as to what happens to the name. That is why I let it expire. If you get it -ok with me. If not - ok with me." Now my friend is stuck. One wonders how they will handle names that did not even expire yet.
(Allmost?) everybody here seems to know what they are going to build before they start. If that were really true building the software would just be hammering out what you allready know. This is a weird assumption. There is a radical different approach to this, which in practice works remarkably well. Build what you can in a reasonable timeframe. Time up? Project finished.
If the result is promising, start a new project to improve. Stop starting new projects when the improvements don't bring enough benefits anymore.
Just my 2 Eurocents
Making money from Open Source is one often raised topic but not this time. Lets say that Open Source is a 'Good Thing (TM)'. While advocating it, you spend time and effort to convince customers and co-workers that the benefits are real. Well, that's nice. If you are right, they believe you, they follow your advice and they get the benefits. Very nice. But how do you make sure that some of those benefits will spill over to you? Or even to your company?
If I have to deal with someone on the phone, whether it's to follow up on a sales call or to correct an error at the bank, I want it to be as impersonal and as efficient as possible. The more I feel like the salesdroid or CSR is trying to "get to know me", the more irritated and introverted I get, and the more likely I am not to continue using the services.
So, the data acquisition fase (or learning mode) may be irritating, but once the droid knows you will not buy item x or category y, it will not even present those options to you, and that would be an increase in communications-efficiency. Actually I suspect you are confusing people getting personal with chit-chat and personalization of systems/businesses. However I agree with you on the Creepiness. The possibilities of abuse seem endless.
I guess really minimizing the number of coins involved in random amount transactions would be 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16 - 32 - 64 ...etc,
/.-er could calculate this. Now I'm positive I've seen this scheme before, though not in currencies.
maybe some math-knowledgable
I cannot really answer your question, but I can shed some light. In order to minimize
- the number of coins to carry and
- the number of coins involved in transactions
the ratios 1-2-5-etc... in denominations have been implemented in several different countries in just two different schemes:A. 1 - 2.5 - 5 - 10 - 25 - 50 - 100 etc...
B. 1 - 2 - 5 - 10 - 20 - 50 etc
If you take a close look at it, you'll see that both schemes are allmost completely equivalent in the minimum number of coins to use for transactions. Scheme A was in use in the Netherlands, and - appearantly in Spain. B in France and in Germany. I don't remember about the other EMU-countries (I should, I visited most of them). I do not know what the reason was, but the monetary authorities chose for B.
Here you are :-)