What about it? Did you even read that article you just linked to? (Thanks for the link, btw. It was interesting.)
Yes, a linguist was interested in the language play in the book. Which was amusing, and Lecke has admitted that it took a surprising amount of work to pull off. It was still just about gendered language, not some diatribe about how all genitalia are equal. One of the trickiest parts about learning a Romance Language (French, Spanish, Italian) for an English speaker is learning which nouns have which gender. Is a table male or female? How about a computer? A rock? A spaceship? A time machine? Lecke took it one step further, and gave us a creature who wasn't used to assigning gender to anything, and had it struggling with the gender of words in the same way people often do when learning a new language.
Note the conclusion of the article you linked to:
For an extraterrestrial intelligence, parsing which gender-related features are important in which society can be tricky, but Breq's overall sense of confusion is not unique. With more than 6,000 languages still spoken by us humans, we're all aliens right here on Earth.
How is that evidence of some evil attack on maleness? Different amounts of gendering in language is confusing to a non-native speaker! That observation is hardly some some sort of social justice warrioring.
And it was still a minor part of the story, and exactly 0% of the plot. So, again, whatcher point?
The Rabid Puppies (Day's group) got more items on the ballot than the Sad Puppies, so they're really the more appropriate group to discuss.
That's the entire point of the Sad Puppies and Vox Day's Rabid Puppies -- that a group of people are pushing political litmus tests on this award behind the scenes.
And, if that were true, then the voters should have been happy to finally have some non-political choices to vote for, and the puppies should have swept their way to victory. That's not what happened, though, is it?
In fact, if that were true, the puppies should never have been able to get on the ballot in the first place, as io9 pointed out. All those evil conspiring nominators would have rallied to nominate more of those evil SJWworks that are Destroying America!!!! And if there weren't enough of them to do that (the obvious excuse), then how did they manage to show up for the actual vote? The whole freakin' "liberal conspiracy"thing just doesn't fit any of the available facts. Maybe...just maybe, its time to consider alternative theories, like, maybe a lot of other people simply have different taste than you do! Or honestly don't give a frack about all this political BS.
Frankly, when Ilook at the last several winners, Icannot figure out where the liberal politics is supposedly hidden in those works.Nor the high-falutin' snobby literary qualities. The authors (other than maybe Jo Walton) are pretty political, but I'm not seeing that in their works. And most of them were page turners.
If one of the works you think was "focused on sexual identity or preference" was last year's winner, Ancillary Justice, that's a ridiculous claim (though I've heard plenty of people claim it), and I can only assume you didn't read the work. It was a classic space opera, with a protagonist who was a biological war machine, suddenly stuffed into a human body, who frequently got confused about all sorts of human things, including gender. That's it. That's pretty much all the "sexual identity" issues it raised. An artificial creature trying to pretend to be human, which sometimes gets confused about when to use "he" vs "she" when speaking to humans. It was close to 0% of the plot.
And yes, this was enough for the hair-trigger politically correct idiots of the right to start tearing out their hair and claiming that it was trying to destroy science fiction and make us all girly-men.
No, it's because the overwhelming evidence was that they didn't vote for books they liked. They voted for books they were told to vote for, blindly following a slate, instead of voting for the their own preferences. I suspect that many of them never even read the works they nominated. They didn't have to—their great leader, whose ass they have their heads firmly wedged up, told them to vote for it, so they did.
Except that there was a winner for Best Novel, which is all that 97% of the world cares about when the term "Hugo"is bandied about.
Also, lets not forget that when the Whiny/Syphilitic Puppies nominated something that was actually good (Guardians of the Galaxy), the voters went ahead and gave it a Hugo. Makes it pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that the voters decided the Puppy's crap was...crap.
And yeah, I hate politically correct bullshit too. I hate it whichever side it comes from. "Oh no, the Hugo voters picked something that offends me--they must be controlled by an evil liberal cabal! We must destroy them!" That's politically correct bullshit, and I despise it.
And yet, when big companies want to do "heavy lifting" of their data, what are they most likely to turn to? That's right. Linux. Linux is used for everything from tiny embedded systems to the world's largest supercomputers and databases. If you're actually loading hay bails, you're more likely to be using Linux than Windows, both to control the bailer, and to keep track of worldwide distribution of hay. (At best, you might be using some Windows to act as a semi-smart terminal, to get a view of those small devices and big databases running Linux. But there's a steadily increasing chance you'll be using Linux-based Android or Unix-based iOS instead.)
RIght--a system developed by IBM, Google, Intel, Oracle, and a whole horde of other corporations is a "hobbyist" OS. I'm sure the many billions of dollars that IBM alone has poured into Linux development were just for fun. (Not to mention the team of developers they put on OpenOffice after Oracle dropped the ball there, in case you were going to say something about "server-only".)
Have you just come out of a dozen years in suspended animation? Because I can't think of any other reason for such a ridiculous statement.
Think worm-like, not virus-like. Things which hijack the already-running browser process, either directly through something like javascript or plugins, or through code hidden in malformed data that takes advantage of library bugs to smash the stack and hijack control (although this latter approach has been made much more difficult of late).
Debian just looked into this, while considering how to appropriately hack FF into Iceweasel. The URLs are hashed, and a partial hash is sent to Google. Google then sends back a list of dangerous URLs (if any) which match that partial hash.
One can quibble about how long the partial hash should be (too short, and you waste time and bandwidth downloading lists of false positives all the time; too long, and Google may be able to start inferring which sites you're visiting by looking for patterns), but overall, it seems like an excellent compromise between the contrasting needs of security and privacy. Debian ultimately decided to keep the feature, and keep it enabled by default, which says a lot to me. But, of course, you can disable it in either FF or Iceweasel, if you're unhappy with it.
For the moment, I think we can limit ourselves to the number of atoms in the solar system. One rough estimate is that there are 10e29 stars in the universe. If the atoms were divided up approximately evenly between these star's systems, then there'd be 10e82/10e29=10e53. So we have one IPv6 address for each cluster of 10e15 atoms.
Except! I've heard it estimated that about half the matter in the solar system is in the sun, and we don't want to use up the sun to build computers, because we need it to power the computers. So, 10e14 atoms per IPv6 left to work with.
So the question before the audience is:can you build a device that implements an IPv6 stack and a minimal radio transmitter that allows it to communicate with other, similar devices, using only 10e14 atoms? If so, or if it can be done in less, then we may have a problem*. Otherwise, I think we should be fine for now.
(To give you a rough estimate of what you're working with:10e14 atoms of silicon would mass about 46 nanograms.)
Submit your solutions to iwannahelpdestroytheworld@weregonnafreakingcreatethesingularity.com:)
* Although the problem may not be manifest until we convert the *entire* Earth, core and all, into these devices, along with all the other planets, and colonize the Oort cloud, and do the same there.:)
Ok, so he's the CEO of a big company that makes robots--among many other things. So I really have to wonder if he's actually as clueless as this makes him appear, or if he's cynically trying to convince stupid people that they should by his company's pseudo-friendly robots?
Or is there some third option I'm overlooking?
I mean, he might as well say, "robots must be designed to answer the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything." That's just about as plausible, given the state-of-the-art. (And then he could try to sell us speaking robots that can say "forty-two".):)
This was a study of developers. Developers are not exactly typical users. Developers like things like vi and EMACS. And, in fact, developers can already buy keyboards with (for example) caps lock switched with control. (If they care, and are too lazy to remap their own keys.)
Do a broader study of general computer users, and then maybe we'll talk. (No real skin off my nose anyway, since if you design a keyboard layout Idon't like, I'll just remap it to be the way I do like. 'Cause I'm a developer.)
So, it's a GMO, which means the science-deniers on the left will hate it, and it reduces greenhouse gases, so the science-deniers on the right will hate it.
Basically, this is what we need, and it hasn't got a chance of success.
The legality of that is also dubious, especially in the case of CC-NC or similar content. The Grateful Dead, for example, have a very strict non-commercial-use license for their concert recordings which explicitly forbids any sort of advertisement attached to their music. If I put the Dead's music on my (ad-free) site, and someone else injects ads, that someone could well be liable for violating the Dead's copyrights. Which, since many of the Dead's copyrights are held in part by one of the founders of the EFF, could be a risky move.
Of course, most content on the net is provided as-is, so it's not a general problem, but for cases like this, the ISPor CDN might well find themselves in legal hot water. (And it does have some obvious analogy to the case at hand.)
"Reptile"is another word that no longer has a solid scientific definition. (In large part because of birds.)
The classic definition of reptile (since you're so enamored of classic, outmoded definitions of terms) includes being cold-blooded, though, so Dinosaurs wouldn't qualify anyway.
But if you really enjoy speaking your own variant of English that is out of sync with what most people speak, more power to you. Just don't expect people to understand your antiquated and bizarrely anti-scientific terminology. Perhaps you can also refer to fire as "phlogiston-release".:)
Why do you think language gets overhauled in Orwell's 1984?
Because Orwell was a little too enamored of the so-called "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis"? I hate to break it to you, but, despite its many obvious parallels to the real world, 1984 was ultimately a work of fiction.
While it's undeniable that language has some influence on culture and thought, the idea that it can be as influential as proposed by some early SF writers (e.g. Orwell, Jack Vance's The Languages of Pao, or Samuel Delaney's Babel-17) is mostly discredited.
Ok, three links, one to an actual pre-pub paper, one to CERN's official press release, and one to a reputable news source? What's wrong with this submitter? Don't you know that Slashdot links are supposed to go to some random bozo's blog, where he rants about the political repercussions of a discovery like this, and how it will affect free software/NSA spying/Sharia law/the Lizard people, all with no useful links to any hard data anywhere, but hundreds of ads?:)
Seriously, I've been expecting this since the recent announcement of a possible tetraquark particle, but I certainly didn't expect it this soon. Very cool.
Depending on how you measure "success record". The ones that have no failures (Saturn I, Long March 1) would seem to have an unbeatable success record by at least one metric.:)
Honestly, I think I'd prefer having pi defined as three than have division by zero return zero. My answers will at least be in the right domain even if the value is off a bit.:)
You only think this makes sense in the real world because you phrased the answer improperly."No one gets the apple" does not answer "how much of the apple does each person get?" The answer to "how much of the apple does each person get?"is "the question makes no sense because there are no people, so there is no 'each person'." Which is the real-world equivalent of what the mathematics says ("No answer/not-a-number").
'Sfunny, I was just coming to post "at least this foul-up can't be blamed on that idiot that's currently running for President", and here I find that someone has already tried to blame that idiot!:)
I think you meant to reply to Crimson Avenger, who is the one who claimed that American football is descended from Rugby. (I agree with him, but I never actually made that claim.)
Anyway, as long as I have you here, I'm going to call you out on the (humorously intended, I know, but still) "unique to this country" thing. First of all, there's Canadian football, which is nearly identical (at least from the perspective of someone who knows Rugby). Second, there are American Football teams on every continent except Antarctica (which has had American Football games, but lacks any formal teams or league memberships), and even an International Federation of American Football, which holds a world championship every four years. (Though for some reason, which I'm sure you can work out, they don't invite any NFL teams.)
Just a minor nit, I know, but this is Slashdot, so....:)
Americans, Canadians, Australians, and even the Irish have their own local games that they refer to as football. That leave the UK and...possibly Jamaica?...as English-speaking countries where Association Football is unambiguous described as just "football". Sure, you can point to all the Spanish-speaking countries in the world that call the game "fútbol", but we're discussing the English word here, so it's reasonable to limit our survey to the Anglosphere, and there, you're wrong.
(Granted the term is fully ambiguous in Australia and Ireland, where a reasonable percentage of the population will assume Association Football if you just say "football", but a reasonable percentage won't.)
And even in the UK, the term has been redefined. It used to be (and in some sense, still is) a class of games, which is why Association Football even has that name. England alone has at least three games that were once all described as football, including Rugby League and Rugby Union. Blaming Americans for redefining the term every country has redefined seems a bit misguided and historically ignorant, and borders on hypocrisy.
If all you say is true then what is your reasoning for why Linux adoption is still in the low-single-digit percentage?
A combination of: it's long-standing reputation for user-hostility, a general lack of interest in "geeky" things, fear of the unknown, and the fact that you have to go wayout of your way to get a copy.
True story:Iwas talking with a friend, who is a school-teacher, at a bar, and she mentioned how sad she was that the school was shutting down their Ubuntu lab. A while later, Isaid something about Linux, and she said, "Oh Ihate that." So Isaid, "if you hate it, why are you so sad the school is shutting down the Ubuntu lab?" And she replied, "Oh, is that Linux? Ihad no idea! Ithought it was that system where you had to type to make the computer do anything.":)
Slashdot Mirror
What about it? Did you even read that article you just linked to? (Thanks for the link, btw. It was interesting.)
Yes, a linguist was interested in the language play in the book. Which was amusing, and Lecke has admitted that it took a surprising amount of work to pull off. It was still just about gendered language, not some diatribe about how all genitalia are equal. One of the trickiest parts about learning a Romance Language (French, Spanish, Italian) for an English speaker is learning which nouns have which gender. Is a table male or female? How about a computer? A rock? A spaceship? A time machine? Lecke took it one step further, and gave us a creature who wasn't used to assigning gender to anything, and had it struggling with the gender of words in the same way people often do when learning a new language.
Note the conclusion of the article you linked to:
For an extraterrestrial intelligence, parsing which gender-related features are important in which society can be tricky, but Breq's overall sense of confusion is not unique. With more than 6,000 languages still spoken by us humans, we're all aliens right here on Earth.
How is that evidence of some evil attack on maleness? Different amounts of gendering in language is confusing to a non-native speaker! That observation is hardly some some sort of social justice warrioring.
And it was still a minor part of the story, and exactly 0% of the plot. So, again, whatcher point?
The Rabid Puppies (Day's group) got more items on the ballot than the Sad Puppies, so they're really the more appropriate group to discuss.
That's the entire point of the Sad Puppies and Vox Day's Rabid Puppies -- that a group of people are pushing political litmus tests on this award behind the scenes.
And, if that were true, then the voters should have been happy to finally have some non-political choices to vote for, and the puppies should have swept their way to victory. That's not what happened, though, is it?
In fact, if that were true, the puppies should never have been able to get on the ballot in the first place, as io9 pointed out. All those evil conspiring nominators would have rallied to nominate more of those evil SJWworks that are Destroying America!!!! And if there weren't enough of them to do that (the obvious excuse), then how did they manage to show up for the actual vote? The whole freakin' "liberal conspiracy"thing just doesn't fit any of the available facts. Maybe...just maybe, its time to consider alternative theories, like, maybe a lot of other people simply have different taste than you do! Or honestly don't give a frack about all this political BS.
Frankly, when Ilook at the last several winners, Icannot figure out where the liberal politics is supposedly hidden in those works.Nor the high-falutin' snobby literary qualities. The authors (other than maybe Jo Walton) are pretty political, but I'm not seeing that in their works. And most of them were page turners.
SJWis a favorite acronym of the SIWs! ;)
If one of the works you think was "focused on sexual identity or preference" was last year's winner, Ancillary Justice, that's a ridiculous claim (though I've heard plenty of people claim it), and I can only assume you didn't read the work. It was a classic space opera, with a protagonist who was a biological war machine, suddenly stuffed into a human body, who frequently got confused about all sorts of human things, including gender. That's it. That's pretty much all the "sexual identity" issues it raised. An artificial creature trying to pretend to be human, which sometimes gets confused about when to use "he" vs "she" when speaking to humans. It was close to 0% of the plot.
And yes, this was enough for the hair-trigger politically correct idiots of the right to start tearing out their hair and claiming that it was trying to destroy science fiction and make us all girly-men.
No, it's because the overwhelming evidence was that they didn't vote for books they liked. They voted for books they were told to vote for, blindly following a slate, instead of voting for the their own preferences. I suspect that many of them never even read the works they nominated. They didn't have to—their great leader, whose ass they have their heads firmly wedged up, told them to vote for it, so they did.
Except that there was a winner for Best Novel, which is all that 97% of the world cares about when the term "Hugo"is bandied about.
Also, lets not forget that when the Whiny/Syphilitic Puppies nominated something that was actually good (Guardians of the Galaxy), the voters went ahead and gave it a Hugo. Makes it pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that the voters decided the Puppy's crap was...crap.
And yeah, I hate politically correct bullshit too. I hate it whichever side it comes from. "Oh no, the Hugo voters picked something that offends me--they must be controlled by an evil liberal cabal! We must destroy them!" That's politically correct bullshit, and I despise it.
And yet, when big companies want to do "heavy lifting" of their data, what are they most likely to turn to? That's right. Linux. Linux is used for everything from tiny embedded systems to the world's largest supercomputers and databases. If you're actually loading hay bails, you're more likely to be using Linux than Windows, both to control the bailer, and to keep track of worldwide distribution of hay. (At best, you might be using some Windows to act as a semi-smart terminal, to get a view of those small devices and big databases running Linux. But there's a steadily increasing chance you'll be using Linux-based Android or Unix-based iOS instead.)
RIght--a system developed by IBM, Google, Intel, Oracle, and a whole horde of other corporations is a "hobbyist" OS. I'm sure the many billions of dollars that IBM alone has poured into Linux development were just for fun. (Not to mention the team of developers they put on OpenOffice after Oracle dropped the ball there, in case you were going to say something about "server-only".)
Have you just come out of a dozen years in suspended animation? Because I can't think of any other reason for such a ridiculous statement.
Think worm-like, not virus-like. Things which hijack the already-running browser process, either directly through something like javascript or plugins, or through code hidden in malformed data that takes advantage of library bugs to smash the stack and hijack control (although this latter approach has been made much more difficult of late).
Debian just looked into this, while considering how to appropriately hack FF into Iceweasel. The URLs are hashed, and a partial hash is sent to Google. Google then sends back a list of dangerous URLs (if any) which match that partial hash.
One can quibble about how long the partial hash should be (too short, and you waste time and bandwidth downloading lists of false positives all the time; too long, and Google may be able to start inferring which sites you're visiting by looking for patterns), but overall, it seems like an excellent compromise between the contrasting needs of security and privacy. Debian ultimately decided to keep the feature, and keep it enabled by default, which says a lot to me. But, of course, you can disable it in either FF or Iceweasel, if you're unhappy with it.
For the moment, I think we can limit ourselves to the number of atoms in the solar system. One rough estimate is that there are 10e29 stars in the universe. If the atoms were divided up approximately evenly between these star's systems, then there'd be 10e82/10e29=10e53. So we have one IPv6 address for each cluster of 10e15 atoms.
Except! I've heard it estimated that about half the matter in the solar system is in the sun, and we don't want to use up the sun to build computers, because we need it to power the computers. So, 10e14 atoms per IPv6 left to work with.
So the question before the audience is:can you build a device that implements an IPv6 stack and a minimal radio transmitter that allows it to communicate with other, similar devices, using only 10e14 atoms? If so, or if it can be done in less, then we may have a problem*. Otherwise, I think we should be fine for now.
(To give you a rough estimate of what you're working with:10e14 atoms of silicon would mass about 46 nanograms.)
Submit your solutions to iwannahelpdestroytheworld@weregonnafreakingcreatethesingularity.com :)
* Although the problem may not be manifest until we convert the *entire* Earth, core and all, into these devices, along with all the other planets, and colonize the Oort cloud, and do the same there. :)
Ok, so he's the CEO of a big company that makes robots--among many other things. So I really have to wonder if he's actually as clueless as this makes him appear, or if he's cynically trying to convince stupid people that they should by his company's pseudo-friendly robots?
Or is there some third option I'm overlooking?
I mean, he might as well say, "robots must be designed to answer the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything." That's just about as plausible, given the state-of-the-art. (And then he could try to sell us speaking robots that can say "forty-two".) :)
This was a study of developers. Developers are not exactly typical users. Developers like things like vi and EMACS. And, in fact, developers can already buy keyboards with (for example) caps lock switched with control. (If they care, and are too lazy to remap their own keys.)
Do a broader study of general computer users, and then maybe we'll talk. (No real skin off my nose anyway, since if you design a keyboard layout Idon't like, I'll just remap it to be the way I do like. 'Cause I'm a developer.)
So, it's a GMO, which means the science-deniers on the left will hate it, and it reduces greenhouse gases, so the science-deniers on the right will hate it.
Basically, this is what we need, and it hasn't got a chance of success.
The legality of that is also dubious, especially in the case of CC-NC or similar content. The Grateful Dead, for example, have a very strict non-commercial-use license for their concert recordings which explicitly forbids any sort of advertisement attached to their music. If I put the Dead's music on my (ad-free) site, and someone else injects ads, that someone could well be liable for violating the Dead's copyrights. Which, since many of the Dead's copyrights are held in part by one of the founders of the EFF, could be a risky move.
Of course, most content on the net is provided as-is, so it's not a general problem, but for cases like this, the ISPor CDN might well find themselves in legal hot water. (And it does have some obvious analogy to the case at hand.)
"Reptile"is another word that no longer has a solid scientific definition. (In large part because of birds.)
The classic definition of reptile (since you're so enamored of classic, outmoded definitions of terms) includes being cold-blooded, though, so Dinosaurs wouldn't qualify anyway.
But if you really enjoy speaking your own variant of English that is out of sync with what most people speak, more power to you. Just don't expect people to understand your antiquated and bizarrely anti-scientific terminology. Perhaps you can also refer to fire as "phlogiston-release". :)
Why do you think language gets overhauled in Orwell's 1984?
Because Orwell was a little too enamored of the so-called "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis"? I hate to break it to you, but, despite its many obvious parallels to the real world, 1984 was ultimately a work of fiction.
While it's undeniable that language has some influence on culture and thought, the idea that it can be as influential as proposed by some early SF writers (e.g. Orwell, Jack Vance's The Languages of Pao, or Samuel Delaney's Babel-17) is mostly discredited.
Ok, three links, one to an actual pre-pub paper, one to CERN's official press release, and one to a reputable news source? What's wrong with this submitter? Don't you know that Slashdot links are supposed to go to some random bozo's blog, where he rants about the political repercussions of a discovery like this, and how it will affect free software/NSA spying/Sharia law/the Lizard people, all with no useful links to any hard data anywhere, but hundreds of ads? :)
Seriously, I've been expecting this since the recent announcement of a possible tetraquark particle, but I certainly didn't expect it this soon. Very cool.
Depending on how you measure "success record". The ones that have no failures (Saturn I, Long March 1) would seem to have an unbeatable success record by at least one metric. :)
Honestly, I think I'd prefer having pi defined as three than have division by zero return zero. My answers will at least be in the right domain even if the value is off a bit.:)
You only think this makes sense in the real world because you phrased the answer improperly."No one gets the apple" does not answer "how much of the apple does each person get?" The answer to "how much of the apple does each person get?"is "the question makes no sense because there are no people, so there is no 'each person'." Which is the real-world equivalent of what the mathematics says ("No answer/not-a-number").
'Sfunny, I was just coming to post "at least this foul-up can't be blamed on that idiot that's currently running for President", and here I find that someone has already tried to blame that idiot! :)
I think you meant to reply to Crimson Avenger, who is the one who claimed that American football is descended from Rugby. (I agree with him, but I never actually made that claim.)
Anyway, as long as I have you here, I'm going to call you out on the (humorously intended, I know, but still) "unique to this country" thing. First of all, there's Canadian football, which is nearly identical (at least from the perspective of someone who knows Rugby). Second, there are American Football teams on every continent except Antarctica (which has had American Football games, but lacks any formal teams or league memberships), and even an International Federation of American Football, which holds a world championship every four years. (Though for some reason, which I'm sure you can work out, they don't invite any NFL teams.)
Just a minor nit, I know, but this is Slashdot, so.... :)
Americans, Canadians, Australians, and even the Irish have their own local games that they refer to as football. That leave the UK and...possibly Jamaica?...as English-speaking countries where Association Football is unambiguous described as just "football". Sure, you can point to all the Spanish-speaking countries in the world that call the game "fútbol", but we're discussing the English word here, so it's reasonable to limit our survey to the Anglosphere, and there, you're wrong.
(Granted the term is fully ambiguous in Australia and Ireland, where a reasonable percentage of the population will assume Association Football if you just say "football", but a reasonable percentage won't.)
And even in the UK, the term has been redefined. It used to be (and in some sense, still is) a class of games, which is why Association Football even has that name. England alone has at least three games that were once all described as football, including Rugby League and Rugby Union. Blaming Americans for redefining the term every country has redefined seems a bit misguided and historically ignorant, and borders on hypocrisy.
If all you say is true then what is your reasoning for why Linux adoption is still in the low-single-digit percentage?
A combination of: it's long-standing reputation for user-hostility, a general lack of interest in "geeky" things, fear of the unknown, and the fact that you have to go wayout of your way to get a copy.
True story:Iwas talking with a friend, who is a school-teacher, at a bar, and she mentioned how sad she was that the school was shutting down their Ubuntu lab. A while later, Isaid something about Linux, and she said, "Oh Ihate that." So Isaid, "if you hate it, why are you so sad the school is shutting down the Ubuntu lab?" And she replied, "Oh, is that Linux? Ihad no idea! Ithought it was that system where you had to type to make the computer do anything." :)