I just tried opening writer and yes, it crashed (Win7 64-bit, like you). I then opened the default LO starter (the program that asks you which LO program you want); it opened writer just fine. Now I seem to be able to start writer ok. So I would expect it's some kind of old config file problem as another poster suggests. I did uninstall LO 3.4.4 before installing 3.5, since the LO website said you had to do that, but I suppose that leaves some config files laying around. Or maybe it's leaving some resident code running, in which case I'll have trouble if I re-boot. At any rate, it does seem to be a problem.
I didn't say I agreed with it. But in any case, there is a third way: bilingualism. The assumption here is that it's easier to learn to read at a young age in your first language, then learn to read in your second language, than it is to first learn reading in your second language. I do happen to agree with that. And for the record, that's the approach generally advocated by most missionary organizations (SIL, for example).
Some babies are born with six (or more) digits on their hand or foot; the condition is called hexadactyly (or more generally, polydactyly). I think it's rather rare for the supernumerary digit to be functional, though.
Can you point out some of these inaccurate translations in the NIV, or elsewhere? I know Greek (ok, I used to, but I can still use a dictionary and a grammar). I don't know Hebrew or Aramaic, but I'm sure you and I can find someone who does. And then we can decide about these inaccurate translations.
There are *lots* of people with no connection to Christianity who think teaching everyone (to read in) a major language is a Bad Idea. This is a very strong meme among linguists, which goes under the name of "endangered languages." There's lots to be said on both sides--I don't want to say you're 100% wrong--but it's not obvious to everyone (Christian or anti-) that your idea is wise.
As for the whole world of ideas, ideas--any ideas--can be hard to understand in another language. How would you like to learn computer programming (or...) if all the books about it were written in Chinese, or even Vietnamese?
If all languages used the Latin script, things wouldn't be so difficult. (Not needing stacked diacritics would make things still easier.) And for commercially viable languages, like Hindi or Lao, even though their scripts present lots of problems for typesetting, there is enough money in it that someone will come up with something reasonable. It's the minority languages which are spoken in these areas, but which often require modified versions of the majority languages' scripts (because they have additional phonemes), that are the problem. Generally, it's a Bad Idea to use a Latin script if everyone around you is using a Brahmi-based script, or a Perso-Arabic script, or Cyrillic.
No one's stopping you, and there are thousands of languages to choose from.
You might want to first learn linguistics, like most missionaries who have done Bible translation in the last 50 or 100 years have. Although if you pick one of the one or two thousand languages where the missionaries have already gone, you can probably go easy on the phonology part, and just use the orthography the missionaries and native speakers settled on. Some anthropology wouldn't hurt, either.
Then you need to figure out how to pay for it. Missionaries are generally supported by churches and other Christians; maybe you can find an Atheist society to pay you. Plan on taking several years to learn the language to the point where you can work with native speakers to do translation, then a few years to get the team up to speed on the first 100 pages or so; after that, it should go faster. Unless of course your first translation is a physics book, and your second is a biology book.
You'll be creating a lot of new vocabulary in the language as you go along; you might want to look at how Bible translators deal with concepts like "bread" in a culture where bread is something you make once a year to put on graves at the Day of the Dead, or translate "sheep" into Inuit. You'll need to borrow their techniques, and they've thought long and hard about it.
And when you and your team of native speakers have translated some significant set of science books (and they can probably go on without you, provided they find funding), you'll be ten years older and have only another few thousand languages to go. But don't forget that there will need to be a network of teachers, and some mechanism to pay them. Most countries aren't big on minority language education (including the US). I was about to say that you'd also need (print) publishers, but that's another thing the missionaries are providing: a way to bypass the need for printed books.
P.S. Statistical machine translation? Maybe after you've translated a thousand pages of science into one of these languages, so you have a bitext corpus to train the MT system.
Wow, fascinating! I googled it, and it gets discussed in several forums. My German is too rusty to readily understand what they're saying, but I'm looking into it. Thanks for pointing it out!
I think Henry Higgins put it better: Let a woman in your life and your serenity is through, she'll redecorate your home, from the cellar to the dome, and then go on to the enthralling fun of overhauling you. Let a woman in your life, and you're up against a wall, make a plan and you will find, that she has something else in mind, and so rather than do either you do something else that neither likes at all! You want to talk of Keats and Milton, she only wants to talk of love. You go to see a play or ballet, and spend it searching for her glove! Let a woman in your life and you invite eternal strife. (and so on...)
Rats, my snail mail is slow enough already (three weeks for a package from NJ to MD, by way of side trips to Florida and Virginia--maybe they got a slingshot gravity boost down there?). If my mail has to go to Pluto, I'll have to get relativistic to live long enough for my snail mail to get to me.
20/20 is just average vision, I believe. I was tested some years ago with 20/13 in one eye, and 20/14 in the other. That means I could see at 20 feet what the average person had to stand 13 or 14 feet away in order to see. I'm now quite a bit older, and I doubt that my distance vision is still that good, although I suspect it's still better than 20/20. (My close-up vision, on the other hand...let's just say I've had reading glasses for a number of years.)
A lot can be predicted by knowing something about the elements and what kind of bonds they make--a double carbon bond is obviously stronger than a single one, and therefore causes qualitatively predictable changes to IR spectra, for example. I forget most of it--it's been forty years--but as I say, it was far easier for me than biochem, where every reaction indeed seemed to be sui generis. (I don't say biochem is that unpredictable from God's perspective, but I doubt He has to do much memorization.)
Yeah, I can't memorize, but organic chemistry was easy--once you learn a few principles, there's very little memorization. Biochem is (mostly) just the opposite.
BTW, I was MPA on a DDG in the early 70s. Some of my best machinist mates (MMs) were the ones who had flunked out of nuc school.
Suppose in the near future (starting a couple years ago), rather than attending the lecture, you view the recorded lecture. And every five or ten minutes there's a built-in place to pause (analogous to a section in a written book). If you want to take notes, you pause the lecture there and do so. If not, you just continue. That avoids the "can't recall after an hour's lecture" problem.
Of course if the lecture is pre-recorded, you could in principle just listen to it again and again. But I think notes are better, because they force you to think about what you heard.
I am no longer in school, but often attend meetings (ok, that's another topic...) where we discuss technical topics. I need to pay attention to the train of thought, and occasionally participate in the discussion. If I took notes, I wouldn't be able to follow as well, nor formulate my thoughts for what is hopefully a useful contribution. So we take along someone who is reasonably well-versed in what we're talking about, whose responsibility is to take notes. (I do occasionally jot down something I want to comment on later.) That method can be ported over to the school situation, in fact it was done at U of Illinois in classes I took forty years ago: a grad student took notes in the professors' lectures, and sold them to us undergrads, leaving us free to think about what we were hearing.
> Every year since 1997 has been warmer than 1997. > Every single one. Every one. So you're absolutely 100% wrong.
That's cherry picking (1997), and also misses the point: there has been no trend since 1998 (or whatever the year is they chose). So you're 100% misunderstanding.
Another fact: When I was a child, it was uphill to school both ways, and the snow was three feet deep from late November through early March.
And another fact that proves global warming, which I discovered while camping a couple years ago: the ground was much softer to sleep on when I was a kid. (And no, it can't have anything to do with the fact that I'm 61, because 60 is the new 50. So there!)
Slashdot Mirror
I just tried opening writer and yes, it crashed (Win7 64-bit, like you). I then opened the default LO starter (the program that asks you which LO program you want); it opened writer just fine. Now I seem to be able to start writer ok. So I would expect it's some kind of old config file problem as another poster suggests. I did uninstall LO 3.4.4 before installing 3.5, since the LO website said you had to do that, but I suppose that leaves some config files laying around. Or maybe it's leaving some resident code running, in which case I'll have trouble if I re-boot. At any rate, it does seem to be a problem.
I didn't say I agreed with it. But in any case, there is a third way: bilingualism. The assumption here is that it's easier to learn to read at a young age in your first language, then learn to read in your second language, than it is to first learn reading in your second language. I do happen to agree with that. And for the record, that's the approach generally advocated by most missionary organizations (SIL, for example).
Well, I also have a problem with Windows 7's list of appetizers. Nowhere near as easy to customize as the one in WinXP.
> Is it just me that never had that much trouble writing
> 1 handed? Just get a decent keyboard
Or a pencil.
Some babies are born with six (or more) digits on their hand or foot; the condition is called hexadactyly (or more generally, polydactyly). I think it's rather rare for the supernumerary digit to be functional, though.
Will it run Steamer (http://hci.ucsd.edu/hutchins/Steamer.html)? Having worked on the real thing, I've always wanted to go back and try the simulator.
Can you point out some of these inaccurate translations in the NIV, or elsewhere? I know Greek (ok, I used to, but I can still use a dictionary and a grammar). I don't know Hebrew or Aramaic, but I'm sure you and I can find someone who does. And then we can decide about these inaccurate translations.
There are *lots* of people with no connection to Christianity who think teaching everyone (to read in) a major language is a Bad Idea. This is a very strong meme among linguists, which goes under the name of "endangered languages." There's lots to be said on both sides--I don't want to say you're 100% wrong--but it's not obvious to everyone (Christian or anti-) that your idea is wise.
As for the whole world of ideas, ideas--any ideas--can be hard to understand in another language. How would you like to learn computer programming (or...) if all the books about it were written in Chinese, or even Vietnamese?
If all languages used the Latin script, things wouldn't be so difficult. (Not needing stacked diacritics would make things still easier.) And for commercially viable languages, like Hindi or Lao, even though their scripts present lots of problems for typesetting, there is enough money in it that someone will come up with something reasonable. It's the minority languages which are spoken in these areas, but which often require modified versions of the majority languages' scripts (because they have additional phonemes), that are the problem. Generally, it's a Bad Idea to use a Latin script if everyone around you is using a Brahmi-based script, or a Perso-Arabic script, or Cyrillic.
If you're interested, you might look at http://scripts.sil.org./
For that matter, the author of TeX considers himself a Christian (although he might well have invented it even if he weren't a Christian).
Speaking as a Christian, that's sort of the point. What we *want* to do all too often gets in the way of doing what we *should* despite what we want.
No one's stopping you, and there are thousands of languages to choose from.
You might want to first learn linguistics, like most missionaries who have done Bible translation in the last 50 or 100 years have. Although if you pick one of the one or two thousand languages where the missionaries have already gone, you can probably go easy on the phonology part, and just use the orthography the missionaries and native speakers settled on. Some anthropology wouldn't hurt, either.
Then you need to figure out how to pay for it. Missionaries are generally supported by churches and other Christians; maybe you can find an Atheist society to pay you. Plan on taking several years to learn the language to the point where you can work with native speakers to do translation, then a few years to get the team up to speed on the first 100 pages or so; after that, it should go faster. Unless of course your first translation is a physics book, and your second is a biology book.
You'll be creating a lot of new vocabulary in the language as you go along; you might want to look at how Bible translators deal with concepts like "bread" in a culture where bread is something you make once a year to put on graves at the Day of the Dead, or translate "sheep" into Inuit. You'll need to borrow their techniques, and they've thought long and hard about it.
And when you and your team of native speakers have translated some significant set of science books (and they can probably go on without you, provided they find funding), you'll be ten years older and have only another few thousand languages to go. But don't forget that there will need to be a network of teachers, and some mechanism to pay them. Most countries aren't big on minority language education (including the US). I was about to say that you'd also need (print) publishers, but that's another thing the missionaries are providing: a way to bypass the need for printed books.
P.S. Statistical machine translation? Maybe after you've translated a thousand pages of science into one of these languages, so you have a bitext corpus to train the MT system.
Wow, fascinating! I googled it, and it gets discussed in several forums. My German is too rusty to readily understand what they're saying, but I'm looking into it. Thanks for pointing it out!
Slashdot for opinions about dating sites? I think we're all clueless male nerds here (and I'm including myself).
I think Henry Higgins put it better:
Let a woman in your life and your serenity is through,
she'll redecorate your home, from the cellar to the dome,
and then go on to the enthralling fun of overhauling you.
Let a woman in your life, and you're up against a wall,
make a plan and you will find,
that she has something else in mind,
and so rather than do either you do something else
that neither likes at all!
You want to talk of Keats and Milton,
she only wants to talk of love.
You go to see a play or ballet, and spend it searching
for her glove!
Let a woman in your life
and you invite eternal strife.
(and so on...)
Tomorrow, I'm writing another one.
(German doesn't have the equivalent of English progressive, i.e. no tense/ aspect formed with German's rough equivalent of -ing)
Rats, my snail mail is slow enough already (three weeks for a package from NJ to MD, by way of side trips to Florida and Virginia--maybe they got a slingshot gravity boost down there?). If my mail has to go to Pluto, I'll have to get relativistic to live long enough for my snail mail to get to me.
No, this:
http://cheapandchinese.blogspot.com/2010/10/facehugger-pumpkin.html
Very little difference, I think.
20/20 is just average vision, I believe. I was tested some years ago with 20/13 in one eye, and 20/14 in the other. That means I could see at 20 feet what the average person had to stand 13 or 14 feet away in order to see. I'm now quite a bit older, and I doubt that my distance vision is still that good, although I suspect it's still better than 20/20. (My close-up vision, on the other hand...let's just say I've had reading glasses for a number of years.)
A lot can be predicted by knowing something about the elements and what kind of bonds they make--a double carbon bond is obviously stronger than a single one, and therefore causes qualitatively predictable changes to IR spectra, for example. I forget most of it--it's been forty years--but as I say, it was far easier for me than biochem, where every reaction indeed seemed to be sui generis. (I don't say biochem is that unpredictable from God's perspective, but I doubt He has to do much memorization.)
Yeah, I can't memorize, but organic chemistry was easy--once you learn a few principles, there's very little memorization. Biochem is (mostly) just the opposite.
BTW, I was MPA on a DDG in the early 70s. Some of my best machinist mates (MMs) were the ones who had flunked out of nuc school.
Suppose in the near future (starting a couple years ago), rather than attending the lecture, you view the recorded lecture. And every five or ten minutes there's a built-in place to pause (analogous to a section in a written book). If you want to take notes, you pause the lecture there and do so. If not, you just continue. That avoids the "can't recall after an hour's lecture" problem.
Of course if the lecture is pre-recorded, you could in principle just listen to it again and again. But I think notes are better, because they force you to think about what you heard.
I am no longer in school, but often attend meetings (ok, that's another topic...) where we discuss technical topics. I need to pay attention to the train of thought, and occasionally participate in the discussion. If I took notes, I wouldn't be able to follow as well, nor formulate my thoughts for what is hopefully a useful contribution. So we take along someone who is reasonably well-versed in what we're talking about, whose responsibility is to take notes. (I do occasionally jot down something I want to comment on later.) That method can be ported over to the school situation, in fact it was done at U of Illinois in classes I took forty years ago: a grad student took notes in the professors' lectures, and sold them to us undergrads, leaving us free to think about what we were hearing.
> Every year since 1997 has been warmer than 1997.
> Every single one. Every one. So you're absolutely 100% wrong.
That's cherry picking (1997), and also misses the point: there has been no trend since 1998 (or whatever the year is they chose). So you're 100% misunderstanding.
Another fact: When I was a child, it was uphill to school both ways, and the snow was three feet deep from late November through early March.
And another fact that proves global warming, which I discovered while camping a couple years ago: the ground was much softer to sleep on when I was a kid. (And no, it can't have anything to do with the fact that I'm 61, because 60 is the new 50. So there!)