You certainly do have limits in most countries. Calling someone guilty of a crime in public may very well be libel or slander. If the person is declared innocent in a trial your assertion that they are guilty could land you in hot water.
I haven't even RTFA so I have absolutely no clue one way or another. But it isn't unheard of for the press to take a juicy story and run with it, leaving just enough unsaid to protect them from a lawsuit (sometimes they don't even do that). Judging people based solely on reports in the newspaper is quite unfair and legally dangerous.
Of course, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
First, let me assure you that your feeling is normal. You are almost certainly *not* language-learning-challenged, as much as you may fear that you are. I can't write as much as I would like to in a Slashdot posting, and you likely wouldn't read it anyway, but I'll try to shine a light on where I think you're having difficulty.
I want to point out that 5 year-olds are extremely fluent in their native language. They have all the basic grammar and a vocabulary of 4-6 thousand words. This is not enough to have a normal adult conversation, but it is more than enough to function. But you are right. They do not have the language ability of adults. By the time a child is 12, they will know more than 20,000 words. Adults know many tens of thousands of words. In comparison, a 5 year old knows nothing.
People have their expectations set incredibly badly by our education system. How long does it take to learn 6000 words? Realistically, years. And even then you'll be lucky to speak like a 5 year old. That's OK. Speaking like a 5 year old is fantastic! You can do any practical thing you want to do. What you *can't* do is function like an adult with a 60,000 word vocabulary and facility with advanced grammar. Most people can't remember what it was like when they were 5 and so are extremely disappointed with their language ability, even when they work extremely hard.
I know that you think 5 days a week studying for 6 months should get you x% of the way to learning the language (where x is significant), but that is kind of naive. Our 5 year old child would only learn 500 words in that time, and that's studying 24/7. To top it all off, 500 words will give you no actual facility with the language in any real life context. The fact that you worked really hard for such a long time made you believe that you *should* succeed, and you appear not to have succeeded (though I will dispute that).
In my post, I didn't mean to imply that learning a language would be quick. What I meant was that anyone of normal, and even considerably below normal intelligence can learn a language. It is not complex in the way that calculus is complex. Everyone can do it. It also doesn't mean that everyone will do it. Most will not, because it is a gigantic pain in the ass.
Where you are running into trouble is that your expectations were set badly. Also, studying 7 days a week is considerably more effective than studying 5 days a week, even if your overall time is less. But more than all of that is the fact that you gave up after only 6 months. You could speak like a 6 month year old baby (i.e., not at all) and so you didn't continue. Language learning requires you to be more patient than that. It requires you to believe that you will ultimately succeed, even if you don't see any immediate improvement. It requires that you study consistently and prioritize your study, regardless of your circumstances. It requires that you find ways to keep yourself motivated and keep your spirits high, even if you make mistake after mistake after mistake. It requires you to push forward even when your success doesn't match your imaginings.
The point to my previous post was that these skills are invaluable in life, whether or not you become fluent in a particular language.
It's a difficult thing to communicate in a posting like this, and I fear I may not have succeeded. I felt exactly that same way as you one time. I spent 13 years at school learning French. At the end of it I couldn't even have the most basic conversation. I never did learn French, but now I am fluent in Japanese (both speaking and reading) -- not at an adult level, but maybe somewhere around a 10 year old level. The only time I speak English anymore is at my job (or posting on Slashdot). But far more than learning Japanese, learning how to learn a language was incredibly valuable. If you can ever spare the time, I encourage you to try again.
If you made it this far, I just want to point out that adult learners of langua
OMG! I thought you must be exaggerating until I saw the link. I especially liked this bit:
Riley, who began her career using only black and white patterns, started to experiment with colour in 1967, the same year she began painting stripes.
It's a very lovely picture, but I think Riley, having spent 45 years painting stripes, should consider painting other things as well. A nice horsey or doggy would be wonderful!
Thank you, that makes a lot of sense. I just finished learning hiragana and katakana, and still practising reading/writing, but I'll try to start on the kanji as soon as possible - even though I expect it'll take me years to become anywhere near fluent:)
"Remembering the Kanji" by James Heisig is a useful method for learning kanji. You can download the first third of the book from the publisher as a pdf here. I personally disagree with the order of learning, but the technique is sound. He suggests learning English keywords for all the common kanji before learning Japanese. I don't think that's necessary. Learning it in the same order that Japanese students learn will allow you to read as you learn, which I have found more effective. Also, some of his English keywords are poor (i.e., the character does not commonly have that meaning). The keywords in the kanjidic project are better. You can look at them with the Rikaichan plugin in Firefox among other means.
My teacher insists on the polite forms (the course is sponsored by the company, and, obviously, they're mainly interested in business interactions), but I try to go beyond that - I expect reading as much as I can will help there.
In that case, I think your teacher is probably correct. If you are just a tourist, talking like an impolite child might cause some surprise, but nobody is likely to get seriously upset. In business it's a different matter. You really do need to be polite. Like you say, reading will help you a lot.
I don't really like to pimp out my own software, but we're deep enough in the thread that I hope I don't step on anyone's toes. I have been writing a Japanese study tool called JLDrill http://jldrill.rubyforge.org/ Basically it is a spaced repetition drill program. Other programs like Anki are more flexible and better supported (and easier to install...), but JLDrill has some specific Japanese study tools that you might find helpful. If you like, give it a try. If you have any problems give me a shout.
I teach English to Japanese high school students. The vast majority of them will never speak English ever again. Nor will they need to. Here's what I tell them.
Not everyone needs to speak English. If you plan to stay where you are, probably you can avoid having to speak English. This does not imply that learning English is not useful for some people. I live and work in Japan and can do so partly because I speak/read Japanese. Life in Japan is hard if you don't speak and read Japanese. This is true in other places in the world. If you don't speak the language, you will never, ever fit in the way someone who is fluent does.
You don't need to speak any particular language, but being able to learn a language gives you options that other people don't have. It is a skill that can open many doors for you.
One of the advantages of learning a language is that it is easy. That is probably surprising to many people, but the fact of the matter is that it is not difficult to speak English, or Japanese or any other human language. All over the world there are amazingly stupid people who can speak their native language fluently. If you can speak one language, you can easily speak two, or three, or any number of other languages.
Why don't people learn foreign languages if it is so easy? Because, while it is conceptually simple, a language is huge. Learning a language requires persistence, attention to detail, flexibility, the ability to make and admit mistakes and a huge amount of effort. There are techniques that will make the process faster and more pleasant, but in the end language acquisition is a process of personal growth.
While there are some few benefits for knowing a foreign language, it is true that most people neither need nor will realise those benefits. The process of learning a language is another matter altogether, though. The skills required to succeed are the real treasure. Those who avoid learning these skills, which are admittedly a pain to acquire, only hurt themselves. I don't care if my students use English in their lives or not. I teach those other skills *through* English, not *for* English.
Just a quick tip. Start on kanji as soon as possible. Knowing the kanji creates mnemonics for learning vocabulary. It also helps you decipher new vocabulary that you've never seen before. I wasted a lot of time before I realized that learning the kanji and and vocabulary at the same time is *faster* than learning the vocabulary alone.
One more quick tip while I'm here (somewhat controversial, probably). Completely ignore polite speech until you have a good grasp of the underlying plain form. This is opposite to virtually every textbook on the market, but if you are like me it will save you a lot of time. Polite grammar is a *very* easy to learn extension of plain grammar. But the opposite is not true. If you start thinking using polite grammar you will constantly be making mistakes in the *much* more common plain grammar. Advice to the contrary is to deal with talking with strangers (100% of the speach you are likely to use while travelling). But if you want to learn to speak Japanese rather than just use handy phrases, it is bad advice IMHO. The order presented in Tae Kim's guide is extremely helpful: http://www.guidetojapanese.org/learn/ This isn't all the grammar in the language (by a long shot), but if you learn this you can be relatively fluent in most situations.
Finally, reading manga will show you good conversational patterns. Please keep in mind that some characters have speech affectations that nobody would use in real life. These are easy to spot, though. Reading other material is not nearly as useful for acquiring conversational language in my experience.
I've lived in Japan for the last 5 years. My Japanese is reasonable, though the newspaper can still be a challenge for me. Here is my take on it. I apologize if I make mistakes. Please try to get verification for whatever I say.
The situation is complicated. Basically TEPCO is billions in debt. The last I heard, the government is not likely to bail them out. This is significant, I think, because if the government decided to bail out TEPCO, they would in essence take on responsibility for dealing with the cleanup. There is money allocated for rebuilding the tsunami affected areas and already some of the slimier politicians have tried to siphon that money away for other things (like free health care for everyone under the age of 20 in their areas). TEPCO is on the hook, but if they fold, I don't think anyone will be responsible. The money allocated for rebuilding from the tsunami does not seem to address cleaning up after the nuclear problem, so I don't know what will happen.
For other nuclear reactors around the country, it is true they are shut down. I live close to the infamous reactor in Hamaoka and the local government has agreed for a long time to shut down the reactor (well, it never worked properly anyway -- it's been mostly shut down the entire time I've been here due to one problem or another). The people here actually picketed the power plant a couple of times. I've never seen that for any other issue. They don't want the power plant running. I can't imagine anything changing.
Japan is a strange place. For the most part the people just go along with the politicians. But if they set their mind, the politicians can not shift it. A similar situation occurred with the attempted privatization of the post office (impossible) and with changing the constitution to allow Japan to help the US in armed struggles (completely impossible). Attempting to go against the people led to the resignation of the prime minister each time (To be fair, I've lost count of the prime ministers we've had since I've been here, though...)
So the biggest problem is that while there is a definite political will to transition away from nuclear, there is no actual plan to do so and no resources assigned. TEPCO will likely go bust (after spending as much as they can on cleanup) without finishing cleaning up after Fukushima and the government seems unlikely to finish it either. Eventually someone will be guilted into paying for it, but it's not clear to me at the moment who it will be.
I may be wrong, but I think the government is hoping people simply will forget where their power comes from. They'll insert a new company to replace TEPCO (probably with most of the same players) and they will just go along as usual. But like the post office and the constitution, I suspect that they have misunderstood the political climate. I predict a fairly hectic year or two after which whatever plans they have now will be completely scrapped and replaced with something new. Oh and we will also get at least one (maybe two!) new prime ministers in that period as the shit hits the fan.
So basically, if you are interested to see what Japan will actually do, I'd wait and not jump to conclusions.
No. You are wrong. The people being kept out of their houses are in the immediate vicinity of the power plant. Where those houses are located it's a reasonable precaution.
I live in Japan. Life here isn't like it is in the west. Before the tsunami the air conditioner in the office was set to 26 degrees C. After it was set to 28 decrees C. In the winter, the heater was set to 15 degrees C before the tsunami and 14 degrees C after. Even then, because it was a cold winter where I am, they ended up pushing up the thermostat to 15 degrees anyway.
BTW, I work in a school and the class rooms are unheated/uncooled just like always.
Conservation works reasonably well. The problem was that the Japanese were already conserving.
Making a copy of a copyrighted work is copyright infringement. It *may* be fair use in the US (format shifting is often said to be fair use), but I don't really know.
It shouldn't be illegal, but in many places in the world it will be.
Matt Dillon is a rather famous programmer (as programmers go). I assume that's why they mention him by name. I think a very large percentage of old Amiga hackers know who he is. He's also done work on the Linux kernel. Despite all that, he's best known for his work on FreeBSD and on his DragonflyBSD project. While a lot of old timers will know that, not everyone else will.
Yes and no. What the students are expected to know is the same every year. But the students are different. What they already know, their aptitude, their enthusiasm, their likes and dislikes -- all of it is different for every group of students.
It's not as bad as it sounds. For each of my subjects I teach about 80 cleasses a year. Each class requires a handout with an average of 2 pages on it. Thus for each subject I need about 160 pages of in class handouts per year. These handouts act as a roadmap for the class. If the student gets distracted, or tired, they always have something in front of them to reorient themselves. I teach about 6 different subjects a year (a combination of general communication oriented classes, general english classes, specific reading, writing and prescriptive grammar classes.... I teach high school, so these courses can occur in combinations in all three grades). So that's 1000 pages a year. Well, in reality it's a bit more since I have to set exams, homework papers, etc, etc.
One of the challenges is that I have to follow the textbook. The school is required to have a textbook for the course and the parents are required to buy the textbook each year. They are not allowed to buy used textbooks even if the textbook doesn't change. Welcome to Japan! The parents get justifiably upset if I don't follow the textbook they just bought. But the students can't use the textbooks because they are crap. So I write these accompanying handouts.
The contents of the handouts don't change appreciably. The language doesn't change. But the order of presentation can change. The type of presentation can also change dramatically depending on the interests of the students and their levels. I've been doing this for 5 years now, so I have a database of problems that I draw from. I also pick and choose problems from the textbook. Most of my time is spent editing rather than actual writing (I think I have hit every bug that exists in Open Office), but the handouts are completely different every year.
Anyway, I have the luxury of more time than the average teacher. I don't have a Japanese license, which means I can only teach on contract in a public school. I'm not teaching a full schedule and I don't have responsibility for a home room. Normal teachers don't have time to do what I do. That's why I want textbooks that aren't firmly rooted in 1950's language acquisition theory.
Fair enough, but educational techniques *have* been changing (albeit not at the rate of new textbooks). I teach English to Japanese students and while the English language has barely changed at all (at least the basics that I'm teaching), the techniques for teaching language are nothing like they were 30 years ago. In fact, I'm frustrated that textbook writers obviously haven't reviewed the research in learning and language acquisition recently (or more likely ever). I *want* new textbooks that at least try to use concepts like comprehensible input.
Having said that, there is a series of math textbooks from Saxon that apparently uses interleaving (spreading types of problem through the textbook rather than doing all of one type in one place, and then move on to the next type). I haven't looked at them, but if its true I applaud them for trying to incorporate new ideas.
In the end, I use a text book in my classes. The students are forced to buy it. Everyone gets their kickback and everyone's happy. Then I rewrite the textbook so that it doesn't suck (seriously I write 1000 pages a year). Kind of kills the photocopying budget, though...
The sad part is that the reply, while snarky, was correct. You seem to be stuck in "victim-mode" where you can't do what you want to do and refuse to look at alternatives.
You would like to have a business model where people who make money using your software give part of it to you. This is fundamentally opposed to the idea of both software freedom and open source software. Freedom 0 in free software states that you may run the software for any purpose after you acquire it. Adding the clause "unless you make a profit" is incompatible with the goals of free software. Additionally, the OSI open source definition specifically says that the software shall not require a royalty.
It's not that the GPL is unfortunately set up badly for your situation. People who write open source software specifically do not want to support your business model. You may think it is entirely reasonable, but the people who write the code you want to use, specifically do not want to do it. That's well within their rights.
As the previous poster suggested, in many cases, you can get around these objections with money. If you are going to get a cut from people running the software, they want their cut too. You may be able to buy a different license. Or not. It depends on the project.
There are many, many different business models that can be successful. Look, you don't seem to want to use a free software compatible business model. Fine. Don't use free software. Hey, I don't use proprietary source code in my software because I don't like the business model that it would force me into. Same thing. Or if you want to use free software, choose a compatible business model.
Seriously, whining because you can't have your cake and eat it too is tiring.
Sigh... Why do I let myself get dragged into this same argument time and time again...
The FSF has, in fact, defined what it means by "freedom". It doesn't try to hide this. It is explicit. The "freedom" it aims for are the 4 freedoms stated here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The goal is not only to give your end user freedoms, but to ensure that their end users also enjoy the same freedoms. They don't pretend to give you freedom to do whatever you want. The 4 freedoms are things that you would not otherwise be able to do under copyright law. They are the minimum for which the FSF considers it "free" software. Other software that offers more freedoms *in addition to these 4* is also called free software.
A more permissive license than GPL will often offer more freedoms to the person receiving the code. In a way they are more free to do what they want to do. For example, I could write a license that specifically allows you to libel me in derived works. Normally, you do not have the freedom to do that. If I give you permission to do so, in a way, you are "more free". I am removing restrictions on what you can say and how you can behave. But is such a license "better"?
You may be able to profit from libeling me in a way that you could not if libel we not possible. So, you might argue that it is a better, more free license. Others might argue that the freedom to libel the authors of software is damaging to the community. Others might even say that it is immoral. If there is a compelling reason to add such a freedom, I may do so, even if it is damaging in some ways. Ordinarily, I will not.
The restrictions on distribution that the GPL does not remove are similar. These are not things you would ordinarily be able to do. The extra freedom you enjoy may be profitable to you, but it may be damaging to other people if you choose use them (i.e., if your derived work is popular, but not free software, then others are deprived from the freedoms you enjoy). If there is a compelling reason to do so, I would certainly use a less restrictive license. Most other free software authors would too. But ordinarily I will choose not to, because the restrictions prevent damage in ways that are important to me.
I respect that those things may not be important to you. I even respect that you may not be able to comprehend the damage. If you did, we would likely not be having this conversation. The choice of license is definitely a balancing act and free software writers choosing the GPL are indeed striving to achieve a certain set of freedoms for everyone rather than a broader set of freedoms for a few.
I once saw an interview with Karl Lagerfeld (the fashion designer), where he said just that. The interviewer asked him if it bothered him to see knock offs of his stuff all over the place for much lower prices. He said that he didn't care at all. His customers don't buy knockoffs. Interesting, I suspect he would be much more upset to see knockoffs being sold as the real thing for the same prices because his customers *might* be duped into buying them.
Similarly, a copy of software downloaded for free off the internet is unlikely to be a lost sale. However, average people will pay ridiculous prices for an authentic Lagerfeld bag, for instance. That branding has value beyond the actual cost of the bag. A knockoff has no such value. Software producers need to be looking at their customers as more than money donors. The branding has to have value beyond the valueless bits that make up the executable. They need to understand why their customers would want the real thing rather than a knockoff that functions identically.
Up to now most software vendors have been crap at this -- to the point where pirated versions of the software, which are DRM unencumbered, are more highly valued that the real thing.
Japanese programmers are the same. Hell, you can't even use Chinese or Japanese characters in Ruby identifiers. And Ruby was invented by a Japanese guy. I've often thought this is too bad. Japanese grammar suits programming so much more than English grammar. It would be great to have a programming language based on Japanese.
I like to write UIs by hand. Actually, I tend to think of it this way: why would I go to the trouble of laying out everything graphically, when I can just let the computer take care of the layout for me? It's a bit like TeX. I define the content and the computer does what it does best by keeping track of all the little details that make the presentation look good. I often have to write my own layout routines, but I only have to do it once for the entire application.
Like you say, it's not hard. I'm a programmer. Programming is my specialty. I'm often surprised that more people don't write UI code by hand.
This is untrue. I can write software using the BSD license and distribute it as long as I pay the license fee (and everyone else downstream of me pays the license fee when they distribute the software).
The GPL is constructed in such a way that you are free to distribute the software as long as you abide by the GPL. You need no other outside permission. This is the issue. With FRAND, even if I pay the license fee, people downstream of me have to get permission (buy a license) in order to redistribute. This is not compatible with the GPL.
FRAND clearly does not allow for the creation of free software under the definition given by the FSF. I can't give permission for my downstream users to redistribute. Only the owner of the patent can give that permission. I can't implement the standard without implementing the patent. Thus I'm stuck.
From an open source point of view, I think FRAND is similarly impossible. The number one point on the OSI's definition of "Open Source" states that it must allow free (as in beer) redistribution. Again I'm stuck.
While it may be possible to write an implementation using a BSD license, I can't write free or open source software according to their definitions. The FSF is correct in their assertion.
Lots of good comments under here. I thought I would add a point or two.
Browse the internet for lists of home many calories your exercise is burning. You may be very surprised at how few calories you are burning (how efficient your body is!!) Running buns 80-120 calories per mile, but most people are around 100 calories or less (the faster you go the more you burn). If you are running 10 minute miles (6 minute kilometers) and you run for 20-30 minutes, you are burning at most 300 calories. About 1 doughnut per day.
If you are obese, that means you have historically been gaining weight. As you gain weight, your resting metabolism increases (it costs to maintain higher weight level). So it is entirely possible that you have been eating an extra 300 calories (a doughnut) above your ideal diet. If you think honestly about it, do you think it is possible that you have been eating more than a doughnut a day above your ideal diet? And if you are running 20-30 minutes a day (or something equivalent), I have found that the activity makes me hungry. It is tempting to reward ourselves with a small snack (like a doughnut).
In other words, it is very easy to actually increase your weight even if you are exercising moderately hard.
The good news is that a pound of fat is about 3500 calories. So if you want to lose 50 pounds in a year (one a week), that's only cutting back 2 or 3 doughnuts a day (after you have gotten to a place where you aren't increasing any more). And if you are running 20-30 minutes a day, as you lose weight it will get easier and easier. It will get more and more fun.
But usually you have to tackle diet *with* exercise to see real weight loss.
One word of warning: You will see people who claim to lose 20 pounds a week or something like that. I like to keep an open mind, but 20 pounds of fat is 70,000 calories. That's 10,000 calories a day. If their resting metabolism is 2000 calories a day and if they eat nothing, they still have to burn 8000 more calories. I guess they run 80 miles a day too.
Yes. It is quite easy to evaluate reasonable claims for weight loss...
You are seriously over complicating this. Just weight yourself every day and keep track of the calories you eat and the exercise you do outside of your normal activities. Nutrition information can be found on the USDA's website. If you eat packaged food, you can look it up on the package. Buy a small postage scale and weigh everything you eat. Yes, it means avoiding eating in a restaurant for a while (unless they can give you that information).
Keep track of how much exercise you do outside of your daily activities. Once you realize that running a mile burns about 100 calories (a ridiculously small amount in relation to effort), you will realize that your daily activities don't really burn that much energy and will average out to a fairly consistent level. I normally burn 1800 calories in a day if I don't do any outside activity. I'm 44 and not so big, so it's a lot lower than a younger guy. Weighing myself every day and keeping track of my input gives me this information. I only did it for a month or so. After that I pretty much know by looking at stuff approximately how many calories I'm eating.
Calorie guides for virtually any activity you want to mention are on the internet. Again, even burning 100 calories is a fairly significant effort, so small inaccuracies will average out.
The major disconnect most people have is that they see a relatively small item like a muffin and think that it can't make that much difference if they eat it. But it's something like 500 calories and to burn that they have to run 4 or 5 miles. If they eat that muffin every day, their weight increases until the energy required to maintain the added weight evens out (guessing something like 20 pounds). So that muffin represents either running 4 miles a day, or carrying 20 extra pounds. Usually ditching the muffin is the easiest option, which is why dieting works to lose weight initially. (Apart from muffins, the other biggest offender that I've run into is salad dressing -- you think you are being healthy until you realize that you just added 350 calories of salad dressing to your 40 calorie salad, and you would have done a lot better eating a hamburger).
Well, I can commiserate with you on the feeling of skiing. Not my cup of tea.
But I think the OP is actually right. You know, I love running. But even if I'm running 6 days a week, the first 3 weeks after a long layoff are not fun for me. In fact, most of the time I hate it. Then, suddenly (and seemingly magically) it becomes fun. I can't really describe what the difference is, but one day I start feeling my body moving. Everything is effortless; I can go faster or slower and it doesn't hurt my body. I start to think, "How fast can I really go?" and I start to push myself. I get out of breath and my muscles get tired, but not like it is in the first 3 weeks. It doesn't actually hurt.
I've trained with a lot of people and taught others how to run. Some people never took to it (fair enough). But there is a difference in attitude with the people who take to it and those who don't. The people who never end up enjoying it never push themselves. Sometimes it seems like they are afraid of hurting themselves. Sometimes it seems that they just don't give a shit. But they never test their limits and so it's never fun.
I also took a couple of skiing lessons like you did. I've done a lot of cross country skiing, so I'm relatively adept on skis, but downhill is something different. I got relatively proficient, but I never got good enough to push myself. I never once thought, "Where is my limit?". I think that's why I never became interested in it.
On the other hand, I practiced karate for 10 years and pushed myself very hard. I never actually enjoyed it. I remember people getting incredibly psyched to go to a karate camp where they would practice for a week at a time. I hated the thought of it. But lately I've been getting into cycling and often long for the weekends where I can ride for hours and hours on end without interruption -- despite (even because of???) the pain my body endures.
It is true that certain sports "click" with certain people. Others don't. But identifying as I do with your description of skiing, I can't help thinking that you are taking it all too superficially. You won't get an emotional payoff until you invest an emotional risk. It doesn't have to be financial (skiing is expensive, for instance). But you have to push yourself beyond what you think you can do. There has to be doubt in your mind and you have to triumph over it.
Sorry... I'm being clumsy with my words. I don't know if you will understand what I mean, but I hope it will give you a different perspective.
Stretching while your muscles are cold is a very bad idea. One of the things that confuses people is how crazily flexible your body is when you are young. You can usually do just about any stupid ass thing and you will not get seriously injured. But as you get older, you lose it. Warm up is essential. Stretching before exercise (before you are warm) is an invitation to injury.
But extrapolating from that to assume that stretching is a bad idea is wrong. Flexibility is extremely useful. If you don't move your body through it's full range of motion, you will gradually lose the ability to do so. Then you are not only at risk of injury during exercise, but also in every day life. Because the loss of flexibility is so gradual, many people don't realize it. But before you know it, it's gone and then you lose your ability to move.
Stretching isn't something you chuck in at the beginning of a workout. It is part of a workout (or even the workout itself). You have to treat it seriously and understand how to do it properly. Just like anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
You certainly do have limits in most countries. Calling someone guilty of a crime in public may very well be libel or slander. If the person is declared innocent in a trial your assertion that they are guilty could land you in hot water.
I haven't even RTFA so I have absolutely no clue one way or another. But it isn't unheard of for the press to take a juicy story and run with it, leaving just enough unsaid to protect them from a lawsuit (sometimes they don't even do that). Judging people based solely on reports in the newspaper is quite unfair and legally dangerous.
Of course, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
First, let me assure you that your feeling is normal. You are almost certainly *not* language-learning-challenged, as much as you may fear that you are. I can't write as much as I would like to in a Slashdot posting, and you likely wouldn't read it anyway, but I'll try to shine a light on where I think you're having difficulty.
I want to point out that 5 year-olds are extremely fluent in their native language. They have all the basic grammar and a vocabulary of 4-6 thousand words. This is not enough to have a normal adult conversation, but it is more than enough to function. But you are right. They do not have the language ability of adults. By the time a child is 12, they will know more than 20,000 words. Adults know many tens of thousands of words. In comparison, a 5 year old knows nothing.
People have their expectations set incredibly badly by our education system. How long does it take to learn 6000 words? Realistically, years. And even then you'll be lucky to speak like a 5 year old. That's OK. Speaking like a 5 year old is fantastic! You can do any practical thing you want to do. What you *can't* do is function like an adult with a 60,000 word vocabulary and facility with advanced grammar. Most people can't remember what it was like when they were 5 and so are extremely disappointed with their language ability, even when they work extremely hard.
I know that you think 5 days a week studying for 6 months should get you x% of the way to learning the language (where x is significant), but that is kind of naive. Our 5 year old child would only learn 500 words in that time, and that's studying 24/7. To top it all off, 500 words will give you no actual facility with the language in any real life context. The fact that you worked really hard for such a long time made you believe that you *should* succeed, and you appear not to have succeeded (though I will dispute that).
In my post, I didn't mean to imply that learning a language would be quick. What I meant was that anyone of normal, and even considerably below normal intelligence can learn a language. It is not complex in the way that calculus is complex. Everyone can do it. It also doesn't mean that everyone will do it. Most will not, because it is a gigantic pain in the ass.
Where you are running into trouble is that your expectations were set badly. Also, studying 7 days a week is considerably more effective than studying 5 days a week, even if your overall time is less. But more than all of that is the fact that you gave up after only 6 months. You could speak like a 6 month year old baby (i.e., not at all) and so you didn't continue. Language learning requires you to be more patient than that. It requires you to believe that you will ultimately succeed, even if you don't see any immediate improvement. It requires that you study consistently and prioritize your study, regardless of your circumstances. It requires that you find ways to keep yourself motivated and keep your spirits high, even if you make mistake after mistake after mistake. It requires you to push forward even when your success doesn't match your imaginings.
The point to my previous post was that these skills are invaluable in life, whether or not you become fluent in a particular language.
It's a difficult thing to communicate in a posting like this, and I fear I may not have succeeded. I felt exactly that same way as you one time. I spent 13 years at school learning French. At the end of it I couldn't even have the most basic conversation. I never did learn French, but now I am fluent in Japanese (both speaking and reading) -- not at an adult level, but maybe somewhere around a 10 year old level. The only time I speak English anymore is at my job (or posting on Slashdot). But far more than learning Japanese, learning how to learn a language was incredibly valuable. If you can ever spare the time, I encourage you to try again.
If you made it this far, I just want to point out that adult learners of langua
OMG! I thought you must be exaggerating until I saw the link. I especially liked this bit:
Riley, who began her career using only black and white patterns, started to experiment with colour in 1967, the same year she began painting stripes.
It's a very lovely picture, but I think Riley, having spent 45 years painting stripes, should consider painting other things as well. A nice horsey or doggy would be wonderful!
Thank you, that makes a lot of sense. I just finished learning hiragana and katakana, and still practising reading/writing, but I'll try to start on the kanji as soon as possible - even though I expect it'll take me years to become anywhere near fluent :)
"Remembering the Kanji" by James Heisig is a useful method for learning kanji. You can download the first third of the book from the publisher as a pdf here. I personally disagree with the order of learning, but the technique is sound. He suggests learning English keywords for all the common kanji before learning Japanese. I don't think that's necessary. Learning it in the same order that Japanese students learn will allow you to read as you learn, which I have found more effective. Also, some of his English keywords are poor (i.e., the character does not commonly have that meaning). The keywords in the kanjidic project are better. You can look at them with the Rikaichan plugin in Firefox among other means.
My teacher insists on the polite forms (the course is sponsored by the company, and, obviously, they're mainly interested in business interactions), but I try to go beyond that - I expect reading as much as I can will help there.
In that case, I think your teacher is probably correct. If you are just a tourist, talking like an impolite child might cause some surprise, but nobody is likely to get seriously upset. In business it's a different matter. You really do need to be polite. Like you say, reading will help you a lot.
I don't really like to pimp out my own software, but we're deep enough in the thread that I hope I don't step on anyone's toes. I have been writing a Japanese study tool called JLDrill http://jldrill.rubyforge.org/ Basically it is a spaced repetition drill program. Other programs like Anki are more flexible and better supported (and easier to install...), but JLDrill has some specific Japanese study tools that you might find helpful. If you like, give it a try. If you have any problems give me a shout.
I teach English to Japanese high school students. The vast majority of them will never speak English ever again. Nor will they need to. Here's what I tell them.
Not everyone needs to speak English. If you plan to stay where you are, probably you can avoid having to speak English. This does not imply that learning English is not useful for some people. I live and work in Japan and can do so partly because I speak/read Japanese. Life in Japan is hard if you don't speak and read Japanese. This is true in other places in the world. If you don't speak the language, you will never, ever fit in the way someone who is fluent does.
You don't need to speak any particular language, but being able to learn a language gives you options that other people don't have. It is a skill that can open many doors for you.
One of the advantages of learning a language is that it is easy. That is probably surprising to many people, but the fact of the matter is that it is not difficult to speak English, or Japanese or any other human language. All over the world there are amazingly stupid people who can speak their native language fluently. If you can speak one language, you can easily speak two, or three, or any number of other languages.
Why don't people learn foreign languages if it is so easy? Because, while it is conceptually simple, a language is huge. Learning a language requires persistence, attention to detail, flexibility, the ability to make and admit mistakes and a huge amount of effort. There are techniques that will make the process faster and more pleasant, but in the end language acquisition is a process of personal growth.
While there are some few benefits for knowing a foreign language, it is true that most people neither need nor will realise those benefits. The process of learning a language is another matter altogether, though. The skills required to succeed are the real treasure. Those who avoid learning these skills, which are admittedly a pain to acquire, only hurt themselves. I don't care if my students use English in their lives or not. I teach those other skills *through* English, not *for* English.
Just a quick tip. Start on kanji as soon as possible. Knowing the kanji creates mnemonics for learning vocabulary. It also helps you decipher new vocabulary that you've never seen before. I wasted a lot of time before I realized that learning the kanji and and vocabulary at the same time is *faster* than learning the vocabulary alone.
One more quick tip while I'm here (somewhat controversial, probably). Completely ignore polite speech until you have a good grasp of the underlying plain form. This is opposite to virtually every textbook on the market, but if you are like me it will save you a lot of time. Polite grammar is a *very* easy to learn extension of plain grammar. But the opposite is not true. If you start thinking using polite grammar you will constantly be making mistakes in the *much* more common plain grammar. Advice to the contrary is to deal with talking with strangers (100% of the speach you are likely to use while travelling). But if you want to learn to speak Japanese rather than just use handy phrases, it is bad advice IMHO. The order presented in Tae Kim's guide is extremely helpful: http://www.guidetojapanese.org/learn/ This isn't all the grammar in the language (by a long shot), but if you learn this you can be relatively fluent in most situations.
Finally, reading manga will show you good conversational patterns. Please keep in mind that some characters have speech affectations that nobody would use in real life. These are easy to spot, though. Reading other material is not nearly as useful for acquiring conversational language in my experience.
I've lived in Japan for the last 5 years. My Japanese is reasonable, though the newspaper can still be a challenge for me. Here is my take on it. I apologize if I make mistakes. Please try to get verification for whatever I say.
The situation is complicated. Basically TEPCO is billions in debt. The last I heard, the government is not likely to bail them out. This is significant, I think, because if the government decided to bail out TEPCO, they would in essence take on responsibility for dealing with the cleanup. There is money allocated for rebuilding the tsunami affected areas and already some of the slimier politicians have tried to siphon that money away for other things (like free health care for everyone under the age of 20 in their areas). TEPCO is on the hook, but if they fold, I don't think anyone will be responsible. The money allocated for rebuilding from the tsunami does not seem to address cleaning up after the nuclear problem, so I don't know what will happen.
For other nuclear reactors around the country, it is true they are shut down. I live close to the infamous reactor in Hamaoka and the local government has agreed for a long time to shut down the reactor (well, it never worked properly anyway -- it's been mostly shut down the entire time I've been here due to one problem or another). The people here actually picketed the power plant a couple of times. I've never seen that for any other issue. They don't want the power plant running. I can't imagine anything changing.
Japan is a strange place. For the most part the people just go along with the politicians. But if they set their mind, the politicians can not shift it. A similar situation occurred with the attempted privatization of the post office (impossible) and with changing the constitution to allow Japan to help the US in armed struggles (completely impossible). Attempting to go against the people led to the resignation of the prime minister each time (To be fair, I've lost count of the prime ministers we've had since I've been here, though...)
So the biggest problem is that while there is a definite political will to transition away from nuclear, there is no actual plan to do so and no resources assigned. TEPCO will likely go bust (after spending as much as they can on cleanup) without finishing cleaning up after Fukushima and the government seems unlikely to finish it either. Eventually someone will be guilted into paying for it, but it's not clear to me at the moment who it will be.
I may be wrong, but I think the government is hoping people simply will forget where their power comes from. They'll insert a new company to replace TEPCO (probably with most of the same players) and they will just go along as usual. But like the post office and the constitution, I suspect that they have misunderstood the political climate. I predict a fairly hectic year or two after which whatever plans they have now will be completely scrapped and replaced with something new. Oh and we will also get at least one (maybe two!) new prime ministers in that period as the shit hits the fan.
So basically, if you are interested to see what Japan will actually do, I'd wait and not jump to conclusions.
No. You are wrong. The people being kept out of their houses are in the immediate vicinity of the power plant. Where those houses are located it's a reasonable precaution.
I live in Japan. Life here isn't like it is in the west. Before the tsunami the air conditioner in the office was set to 26 degrees C. After it was set to 28 decrees C. In the winter, the heater was set to 15 degrees C before the tsunami and 14 degrees C after. Even then, because it was a cold winter where I am, they ended up pushing up the thermostat to 15 degrees anyway.
BTW, I work in a school and the class rooms are unheated/uncooled just like always.
Conservation works reasonably well. The problem was that the Japanese were already conserving.
If you suggest a specific tool that reduces his cost of production, I suspect he will be extremely grateful.
Making a copy of a copyrighted work is copyright infringement. It *may* be fair use in the US (format shifting is often said to be fair use), but I don't really know.
It shouldn't be illegal, but in many places in the world it will be.
Matt Dillon is a rather famous programmer (as programmers go). I assume that's why they mention him by name. I think a very large percentage of old Amiga hackers know who he is. He's also done work on the Linux kernel. Despite all that, he's best known for his work on FreeBSD and on his DragonflyBSD project. While a lot of old timers will know that, not everyone else will.
Yes and no. What the students are expected to know is the same every year. But the students are different. What they already know, their aptitude, their enthusiasm, their likes and dislikes -- all of it is different for every group of students.
It's not as bad as it sounds. For each of my subjects I teach about 80 cleasses a year. Each class requires a handout with an average of 2 pages on it. Thus for each subject I need about 160 pages of in class handouts per year. These handouts act as a roadmap for the class. If the student gets distracted, or tired, they always have something in front of them to reorient themselves. I teach about 6 different subjects a year (a combination of general communication oriented classes, general english classes, specific reading, writing and prescriptive grammar classes.... I teach high school, so these courses can occur in combinations in all three grades). So that's 1000 pages a year. Well, in reality it's a bit more since I have to set exams, homework papers, etc, etc.
One of the challenges is that I have to follow the textbook. The school is required to have a textbook for the course and the parents are required to buy the textbook each year. They are not allowed to buy used textbooks even if the textbook doesn't change. Welcome to Japan! The parents get justifiably upset if I don't follow the textbook they just bought. But the students can't use the textbooks because they are crap. So I write these accompanying handouts.
The contents of the handouts don't change appreciably. The language doesn't change. But the order of presentation can change. The type of presentation can also change dramatically depending on the interests of the students and their levels. I've been doing this for 5 years now, so I have a database of problems that I draw from. I also pick and choose problems from the textbook. Most of my time is spent editing rather than actual writing (I think I have hit every bug that exists in Open Office), but the handouts are completely different every year.
Anyway, I have the luxury of more time than the average teacher. I don't have a Japanese license, which means I can only teach on contract in a public school. I'm not teaching a full schedule and I don't have responsibility for a home room. Normal teachers don't have time to do what I do. That's why I want textbooks that aren't firmly rooted in 1950's language acquisition theory.
Fair enough, but educational techniques *have* been changing (albeit not at the rate of new textbooks). I teach English to Japanese students and while the English language has barely changed at all (at least the basics that I'm teaching), the techniques for teaching language are nothing like they were 30 years ago. In fact, I'm frustrated that textbook writers obviously haven't reviewed the research in learning and language acquisition recently (or more likely ever). I *want* new textbooks that at least try to use concepts like comprehensible input.
Having said that, there is a series of math textbooks from Saxon that apparently uses interleaving (spreading types of problem through the textbook rather than doing all of one type in one place, and then move on to the next type). I haven't looked at them, but if its true I applaud them for trying to incorporate new ideas.
In the end, I use a text book in my classes. The students are forced to buy it. Everyone gets their kickback and everyone's happy. Then I rewrite the textbook so that it doesn't suck (seriously I write 1000 pages a year). Kind of kills the photocopying budget, though...
The sad part is that the reply, while snarky, was correct. You seem to be stuck in "victim-mode" where you can't do what you want to do and refuse to look at alternatives.
You would like to have a business model where people who make money using your software give part of it to you. This is fundamentally opposed to the idea of both software freedom and open source software. Freedom 0 in free software states that you may run the software for any purpose after you acquire it. Adding the clause "unless you make a profit" is incompatible with the goals of free software. Additionally, the OSI open source definition specifically says that the software shall not require a royalty.
It's not that the GPL is unfortunately set up badly for your situation. People who write open source software specifically do not want to support your business model. You may think it is entirely reasonable, but the people who write the code you want to use, specifically do not want to do it. That's well within their rights.
As the previous poster suggested, in many cases, you can get around these objections with money. If you are going to get a cut from people running the software, they want their cut too. You may be able to buy a different license. Or not. It depends on the project.
There are many, many different business models that can be successful. Look, you don't seem to want to use a free software compatible business model. Fine. Don't use free software. Hey, I don't use proprietary source code in my software because I don't like the business model that it would force me into. Same thing. Or if you want to use free software, choose a compatible business model.
Seriously, whining because you can't have your cake and eat it too is tiring.
Sigh... Why do I let myself get dragged into this same argument time and time again...
The FSF has, in fact, defined what it means by "freedom". It doesn't try to hide this. It is explicit. The "freedom" it aims for are the 4 freedoms stated here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The goal is not only to give your end user freedoms, but to ensure that their end users also enjoy the same freedoms. They don't pretend to give you freedom to do whatever you want. The 4 freedoms are things that you would not otherwise be able to do under copyright law. They are the minimum for which the FSF considers it "free" software. Other software that offers more freedoms *in addition to these 4* is also called free software.
A more permissive license than GPL will often offer more freedoms to the person receiving the code. In a way they are more free to do what they want to do. For example, I could write a license that specifically allows you to libel me in derived works. Normally, you do not have the freedom to do that. If I give you permission to do so, in a way, you are "more free". I am removing restrictions on what you can say and how you can behave. But is such a license "better"?
You may be able to profit from libeling me in a way that you could not if libel we not possible. So, you might argue that it is a better, more free license. Others might argue that the freedom to libel the authors of software is damaging to the community. Others might even say that it is immoral. If there is a compelling reason to add such a freedom, I may do so, even if it is damaging in some ways. Ordinarily, I will not.
The restrictions on distribution that the GPL does not remove are similar. These are not things you would ordinarily be able to do. The extra freedom you enjoy may be profitable to you, but it may be damaging to other people if you choose use them (i.e., if your derived work is popular, but not free software, then others are deprived from the freedoms you enjoy). If there is a compelling reason to do so, I would certainly use a less restrictive license. Most other free software authors would too. But ordinarily I will choose not to, because the restrictions prevent damage in ways that are important to me.
I respect that those things may not be important to you. I even respect that you may not be able to comprehend the damage. If you did, we would likely not be having this conversation. The choice of license is definitely a balancing act and free software writers choosing the GPL are indeed striving to achieve a certain set of freedoms for everyone rather than a broader set of freedoms for a few.
I hope that clarifies things a little.
With a safe, if it's locked, the contents still exist.
Presumably, as long as the contents aren't a cat.
I once saw an interview with Karl Lagerfeld (the fashion designer), where he said just that. The interviewer asked him if it bothered him to see knock offs of his stuff all over the place for much lower prices. He said that he didn't care at all. His customers don't buy knockoffs. Interesting, I suspect he would be much more upset to see knockoffs being sold as the real thing for the same prices because his customers *might* be duped into buying them.
Similarly, a copy of software downloaded for free off the internet is unlikely to be a lost sale. However, average people will pay ridiculous prices for an authentic Lagerfeld bag, for instance. That branding has value beyond the actual cost of the bag. A knockoff has no such value. Software producers need to be looking at their customers as more than money donors. The branding has to have value beyond the valueless bits that make up the executable. They need to understand why their customers would want the real thing rather than a knockoff that functions identically.
Up to now most software vendors have been crap at this -- to the point where pirated versions of the software, which are DRM unencumbered, are more highly valued that the real thing.
Japanese programmers are the same. Hell, you can't even use Chinese or Japanese characters in Ruby identifiers. And Ruby was invented by a Japanese guy. I've often thought this is too bad. Japanese grammar suits programming so much more than English grammar. It would be great to have a programming language based on Japanese.
I like to write UIs by hand. Actually, I tend to think of it this way: why would I go to the trouble of laying out everything graphically, when I can just let the computer take care of the layout for me? It's a bit like TeX. I define the content and the computer does what it does best by keeping track of all the little details that make the presentation look good. I often have to write my own layout routines, but I only have to do it once for the entire application.
Like you say, it's not hard. I'm a programmer. Programming is my specialty. I'm often surprised that more people don't write UI code by hand.
This is untrue. I can write software using the BSD license and distribute it as long as I pay the license fee (and everyone else downstream of me pays the license fee when they distribute the software).
The GPL is constructed in such a way that you are free to distribute the software as long as you abide by the GPL. You need no other outside permission. This is the issue. With FRAND, even if I pay the license fee, people downstream of me have to get permission (buy a license) in order to redistribute. This is not compatible with the GPL.
FRAND clearly does not allow for the creation of free software under the definition given by the FSF. I can't give permission for my downstream users to redistribute. Only the owner of the patent can give that permission. I can't implement the standard without implementing the patent. Thus I'm stuck.
From an open source point of view, I think FRAND is similarly impossible. The number one point on the OSI's definition of "Open Source" states that it must allow free (as in beer) redistribution. Again I'm stuck.
While it may be possible to write an implementation using a BSD license, I can't write free or open source software according to their definitions. The FSF is correct in their assertion.
Lots of good comments under here. I thought I would add a point or two.
Browse the internet for lists of home many calories your exercise is burning. You may be very surprised at how few calories you are burning (how efficient your body is!!) Running buns 80-120 calories per mile, but most people are around 100 calories or less (the faster you go the more you burn). If you are running 10 minute miles (6 minute kilometers) and you run for 20-30 minutes, you are burning at most 300 calories. About 1 doughnut per day.
If you are obese, that means you have historically been gaining weight. As you gain weight, your resting metabolism increases (it costs to maintain higher weight level). So it is entirely possible that you have been eating an extra 300 calories (a doughnut) above your ideal diet. If you think honestly about it, do you think it is possible that you have been eating more than a doughnut a day above your ideal diet? And if you are running 20-30 minutes a day (or something equivalent), I have found that the activity makes me hungry. It is tempting to reward ourselves with a small snack (like a doughnut).
In other words, it is very easy to actually increase your weight even if you are exercising moderately hard.
The good news is that a pound of fat is about 3500 calories. So if you want to lose 50 pounds in a year (one a week), that's only cutting back 2 or 3 doughnuts a day (after you have gotten to a place where you aren't increasing any more). And if you are running 20-30 minutes a day, as you lose weight it will get easier and easier. It will get more and more fun.
But usually you have to tackle diet *with* exercise to see real weight loss.
One word of warning: You will see people who claim to lose 20 pounds a week or something like that. I like to keep an open mind, but 20 pounds of fat is 70,000 calories. That's 10,000 calories a day. If their resting metabolism is 2000 calories a day and if they eat nothing, they still have to burn 8000 more calories. I guess they run 80 miles a day too.
Yes. It is quite easy to evaluate reasonable claims for weight loss...
You are seriously over complicating this. Just weight yourself every day and keep track of the calories you eat and the exercise you do outside of your normal activities. Nutrition information can be found on the USDA's website. If you eat packaged food, you can look it up on the package. Buy a small postage scale and weigh everything you eat. Yes, it means avoiding eating in a restaurant for a while (unless they can give you that information).
Keep track of how much exercise you do outside of your daily activities. Once you realize that running a mile burns about 100 calories (a ridiculously small amount in relation to effort), you will realize that your daily activities don't really burn that much energy and will average out to a fairly consistent level. I normally burn 1800 calories in a day if I don't do any outside activity. I'm 44 and not so big, so it's a lot lower than a younger guy. Weighing myself every day and keeping track of my input gives me this information. I only did it for a month or so. After that I pretty much know by looking at stuff approximately how many calories I'm eating.
Calorie guides for virtually any activity you want to mention are on the internet. Again, even burning 100 calories is a fairly significant effort, so small inaccuracies will average out.
The major disconnect most people have is that they see a relatively small item like a muffin and think that it can't make that much difference if they eat it. But it's something like 500 calories and to burn that they have to run 4 or 5 miles. If they eat that muffin every day, their weight increases until the energy required to maintain the added weight evens out (guessing something like 20 pounds). So that muffin represents either running 4 miles a day, or carrying 20 extra pounds. Usually ditching the muffin is the easiest option, which is why dieting works to lose weight initially. (Apart from muffins, the other biggest offender that I've run into is salad dressing -- you think you are being healthy until you realize that you just added 350 calories of salad dressing to your 40 calorie salad, and you would have done a lot better eating a hamburger).
Well, I can commiserate with you on the feeling of skiing. Not my cup of tea.
But I think the OP is actually right. You know, I love running. But even if I'm running 6 days a week, the first 3 weeks after a long layoff are not fun for me. In fact, most of the time I hate it. Then, suddenly (and seemingly magically) it becomes fun. I can't really describe what the difference is, but one day I start feeling my body moving. Everything is effortless; I can go faster or slower and it doesn't hurt my body. I start to think, "How fast can I really go?" and I start to push myself. I get out of breath and my muscles get tired, but not like it is in the first 3 weeks. It doesn't actually hurt.
I've trained with a lot of people and taught others how to run. Some people never took to it (fair enough). But there is a difference in attitude with the people who take to it and those who don't. The people who never end up enjoying it never push themselves. Sometimes it seems like they are afraid of hurting themselves. Sometimes it seems that they just don't give a shit. But they never test their limits and so it's never fun.
I also took a couple of skiing lessons like you did. I've done a lot of cross country skiing, so I'm relatively adept on skis, but downhill is something different. I got relatively proficient, but I never got good enough to push myself. I never once thought, "Where is my limit?". I think that's why I never became interested in it.
On the other hand, I practiced karate for 10 years and pushed myself very hard. I never actually enjoyed it. I remember people getting incredibly psyched to go to a karate camp where they would practice for a week at a time. I hated the thought of it. But lately I've been getting into cycling and often long for the weekends where I can ride for hours and hours on end without interruption -- despite (even because of???) the pain my body endures.
It is true that certain sports "click" with certain people. Others don't. But identifying as I do with your description of skiing, I can't help thinking that you are taking it all too superficially. You won't get an emotional payoff until you invest an emotional risk. It doesn't have to be financial (skiing is expensive, for instance). But you have to push yourself beyond what you think you can do. There has to be doubt in your mind and you have to triumph over it.
Sorry... I'm being clumsy with my words. I don't know if you will understand what I mean, but I hope it will give you a different perspective.
The stretching FAQ is a very good resource: http://www.cmcrossroads.com/bradapp/docs/rec/stretching/
Stretching while your muscles are cold is a very bad idea. One of the things that confuses people is how crazily flexible your body is when you are young. You can usually do just about any stupid ass thing and you will not get seriously injured. But as you get older, you lose it. Warm up is essential. Stretching before exercise (before you are warm) is an invitation to injury.
But extrapolating from that to assume that stretching is a bad idea is wrong. Flexibility is extremely useful. If you don't move your body through it's full range of motion, you will gradually lose the ability to do so. Then you are not only at risk of injury during exercise, but also in every day life. Because the loss of flexibility is so gradual, many people don't realize it. But before you know it, it's gone and then you lose your ability to move.
Stretching isn't something you chuck in at the beginning of a workout. It is part of a workout (or even the workout itself). You have to treat it seriously and understand how to do it properly. Just like anything else.