Just to be clear- just because on average bilingual children achieve measurably better grades, it does not mean that it is a) the only influencing factor, or b) any less possible for monolingual children to grow up to be intelligent, motivated powerhouses.
Your personal successes against the given odds don't invalidate the findings.
It is. Or at least as proven as such things ever are.
IIRC, children brought up in a bilingual household (such as a migrant family) initially develop slower, but end up on average performing better across the board, grades wise.
I don't have the source for that though (it was some years back I studied language), so don't quote me on it.
Similarly, take iTunes. Despite almost every piece of music made in the last 50 years being available for free download somewhere just the other side of a Google search, people still choose to pay for it from a legitimate business.
The industries are quick to call piracy the death of them, but sometimes I wonder if they're not just being pessimistic. There's a business in paid-for internet services, if only they'd look for it.
TV licence is only for devices with TV tuners (so PCs with TV cards would qualify, without wouldn't). And it's not for individual devices; licences are for a residence or business with TV-capable devices.
As an aside, there used to be a Radio licence too. It was dropped with the rise of portable radios, and the age of radio-capable devices being everywhere. We're all waiting eagerly for computers to pull the same trick for TV.
And, people already do the "scraping Wikipedia's DB" part - look at Answers.com.
I'd be surprised if Wikimedia really minded that. They don't generate any revenue from site visits (no ads), so having another company selflessly cover some of your bandwidth costs for you while happily attributing you all credit due (as Answers.com does) seems like a pretty good thing.
(yes, some people still use floppies or flash media smaller than 1MB)./quote>
Who?!
If it's people using it for interesting specialist purposes, they should be more than capable of choosing an appropriate FS for their specialist tasks.
FAT's universal acceptance is only an asset when we're talking about devices than need cross-platform, any-computer compatibility. USB drives which people use to ferry files between computers, or computer gadgetry (like TomTom) that wants to work on anybody's machine.
For your average user with a modern computer, they want a feature-rich, resource-hungry GUI that can rival what MS and Apple are producing. Other people prefer their GUI minimal and unobtrusive.
Even individual distros cater to both groups by offering choice. Ubuntu offers GNOME & KDE for the former, XFCE for the latter. Debian offers the full spread of GUIs. And almost any of the distros can easily witch it's GUI with little effort, after installation.
No one individual GUI has to "win". As long as each one has it's own group of adherents, each project can live happily side by side.
True, but if you go back far enough you can always find another earlier war.
Britain has had (many) civil wars over the years, but never really what you might term a proper modern revolution. Some have established important constitutional and/or legal changes, plenty have switched the government from one group to another, but none have ever implemented the big, ground-breaking change in the long term.
In France, they rose up and exiled almost the entire nobility. In Russia, they executed the most of the extended royal family without trial. In England, we kicked out the king, then invited him back later on the condition that he'll play by a new set of rules.
We've got where we are today by taking a large number of small, cautious steps. Most countries get there in one terrifying leap, and live with the scars.
If you don't think that talking with a millionaire software developer on an orbiting space station using a home-built radio transmitter is cool, you're probably reading the wrong website.
I've never understood that argument. Most credible evidence points to the fact that recent rise in average global temperature is tied to greenhouse gas emissions. Whatever the causes for the changes in the past billions of years, that appears to be causing this particular bout.
And people say "oh, the earth is always turning itself from parched wasteland to giant snowy tundra and back again- it's natural". Natural or not, it's still not something I really want to experience ever so much, seeing as it'll probably mean the collapse of modern civilization, big death toll, genocide, that sort of thing...
I mean hell, even if we didn't cause it, I'd still quite like to find a way of stopping it. Mucking around with nature is supposed to be what we do best- can't we fix this and worry about who's to blame later?
The UK functions almost entirely on unspoken agreements. We don't have an official constitution- but we do have an unspoken agreement that one is there, and that you're not allowed to change it (although political parties have wanted to do so plenty of times). We don't have protected constitutional rights- but we do have unspoken agreement that governments aren't allowed to repeal those rights that aren't there or else something bad might happen (and curiously enough, that one's always seemed to work).
The Queen very much exists in a state of perpetual unspoken agreement. Although technically we're all her property, we all agree not to make a fuss as long as she never tries to exert her ownership in any way (and she doesn't). Although technically she has supreme power of governance, we're all happy to ignore that fact for as long as no-one mentions it too loudly. Technically we can't oust her without violent revolution, but in actuality we all know that we can (as have many of her subjects in ex-Empire countries); both we and her pretend that we can't for as long as she behaves like we can (but equally, as she's only around for the image of the thing, she's not allowed to mention it either so as not to wreck the illusion).
The upshot of all this is no-one is actually terribly sure what will happen if, for example, the government tries to take away an important right. Maybe they'll be allowed to. Maybe the Queen (who technically has to sign off every single law personally) might refuse to pass it in to law (for her own self-preservation if nothing else). Maybe that bloody revolution everyone seems to have had might finally happen in Britain (we're only a couple of centuries late to the party). Maybe the Scots and the Welsh might get together and liberate the English. Maybe option D. It's anyone's guess.
Its difficult to argue with the fact that, previously, students didn't need to buy a laptop, while now they do. That's an increase in the real cost of tuition by the cost of a laptop. For a student who might have been only just paying their way, that might be a difficult cost to swallow.
And even if the $300 isn't a deal breaker, it is typical of the trend in universities. They're forever cutting facilities and expecting students to fill the gap themselves, but never lowering the price.
After all, is UVa cutting the tuition fee by the same amount they're saving every year? Or are they just expecting the students to take a cost off their hands?
I'm not self-employed, but similar holds true. I'm pretty sure you could identify me from just this online handle, based on posts from this and similar discussion boards.
Fact is, you won't learn much out about me that I wouldn't have told you to your face anyway. I'm on pretty friendly terms with my employer, and am close with my friends, and I doubt anything I've said online would be news to them.
And even if you can find out some more intrusive facts about me (medical history, salary, what have you) I might be annoyed, but it isn't anything that I'd lose any sleep over; it's not like it's a matter of national security...
You only have something to worry about if your online and real-life personae completely and utterly different. And that'd make you a big fat phony.
If they'd done it in a closed pool, they wouldn't have got the same result as they did.
The test was to see if this is a viable method of carbon capture. Due to the little sea creatures, turns out that it isn't viable. That's an important result that they're very glad they've found out now, so they can adjust their research accordingly.
These tests are designed (or should be if they're done properly) to be extremely difficult to lie to. By asking you each question 5 times, in completely unrelated wording (and hopefully without you noticing it's the same question), they work on the basis that you won't be able to lie 100% consistently. If there's any difference between your answer to said 5 mirrored questions, they disregard the result from that/those questions. It's questionnaire's 101.
Not that I can vouch that this questionnaire has been done properly. I neither have nor want to read 600 odd questions (or 75, for that matter) in great detail for the purposes of a/. thread...
Slashdot Mirror
Except that all the other flipping news websites and blogs are at it too...
Bloody everything...
You mean any of the stories on Slashdot are real? What the hell have I been reading all this time?!
Just to be clear- just because on average bilingual children achieve measurably better grades, it does not mean that it is a) the only influencing factor, or b) any less possible for monolingual children to grow up to be intelligent, motivated powerhouses.
Your personal successes against the given odds don't invalidate the findings.
Trust The Guardian to compliment their joke with an anagram. Can the next April Fools be in the form of a cryptic crossword?
Give it 10 minutes?
It is. Or at least as proven as such things ever are.
IIRC, children brought up in a bilingual household (such as a migrant family) initially develop slower, but end up on average performing better across the board, grades wise.
I don't have the source for that though (it was some years back I studied language), so don't quote me on it.
Similarly, take iTunes. Despite almost every piece of music made in the last 50 years being available for free download somewhere just the other side of a Google search, people still choose to pay for it from a legitimate business.
The industries are quick to call piracy the death of them, but sometimes I wonder if they're not just being pessimistic. There's a business in paid-for internet services, if only they'd look for it.
TV licence is only for devices with TV tuners (so PCs with TV cards would qualify, without wouldn't). And it's not for individual devices; licences are for a residence or business with TV-capable devices.
As an aside, there used to be a Radio licence too. It was dropped with the rise of portable radios, and the age of radio-capable devices being everywhere. We're all waiting eagerly for computers to pull the same trick for TV.
And, people already do the "scraping Wikipedia's DB" part - look at Answers.com.
I'd be surprised if Wikimedia really minded that. They don't generate any revenue from site visits (no ads), so having another company selflessly cover some of your bandwidth costs for you while happily attributing you all credit due (as Answers.com does) seems like a pretty good thing.
(yes, some people still use floppies or flash media smaller than 1MB)./quote>
Who?!
If it's people using it for interesting specialist purposes, they should be more than capable of choosing an appropriate FS for their specialist tasks.
FAT's universal acceptance is only an asset when we're talking about devices than need cross-platform, any-computer compatibility. USB drives which people use to ferry files between computers, or computer gadgetry (like TomTom) that wants to work on anybody's machine.
It's a fold-out edition.
Therein lies the beauty of open source.
For your average user with a modern computer, they want a feature-rich, resource-hungry GUI that can rival what MS and Apple are producing. Other people prefer their GUI minimal and unobtrusive.
Even individual distros cater to both groups by offering choice. Ubuntu offers GNOME & KDE for the former, XFCE for the latter. Debian offers the full spread of GUIs. And almost any of the distros can easily witch it's GUI with little effort, after installation.
No one individual GUI has to "win". As long as each one has it's own group of adherents, each project can live happily side by side.
True, but if you go back far enough you can always find another earlier war.
Britain has had (many) civil wars over the years, but never really what you might term a proper modern revolution. Some have established important constitutional and/or legal changes, plenty have switched the government from one group to another, but none have ever implemented the big, ground-breaking change in the long term.
In France, they rose up and exiled almost the entire nobility. In Russia, they executed the most of the extended royal family without trial. In England, we kicked out the king, then invited him back later on the condition that he'll play by a new set of rules.
We've got where we are today by taking a large number of small, cautious steps. Most countries get there in one terrifying leap, and live with the scars.
If only he can somehow get the *IA to sue Microsoft too and we can really have some legalistic fireworks.
It's like when Jerry leads Tom into the big dog's kennel, then ducks...
If you don't think that talking with a millionaire software developer on an orbiting space station using a home-built radio transmitter is cool, you're probably reading the wrong website.
I've never understood that argument. Most credible evidence points to the fact that recent rise in average global temperature is tied to greenhouse gas emissions. Whatever the causes for the changes in the past billions of years, that appears to be causing this particular bout.
And people say "oh, the earth is always turning itself from parched wasteland to giant snowy tundra and back again- it's natural". Natural or not, it's still not something I really want to experience ever so much, seeing as it'll probably mean the collapse of modern civilization, big death toll, genocide, that sort of thing...
I mean hell, even if we didn't cause it, I'd still quite like to find a way of stopping it. Mucking around with nature is supposed to be what we do best- can't we fix this and worry about who's to blame later?
The UK functions almost entirely on unspoken agreements. We don't have an official constitution- but we do have an unspoken agreement that one is there, and that you're not allowed to change it (although political parties have wanted to do so plenty of times). We don't have protected constitutional rights- but we do have unspoken agreement that governments aren't allowed to repeal those rights that aren't there or else something bad might happen (and curiously enough, that one's always seemed to work).
The Queen very much exists in a state of perpetual unspoken agreement. Although technically we're all her property, we all agree not to make a fuss as long as she never tries to exert her ownership in any way (and she doesn't). Although technically she has supreme power of governance, we're all happy to ignore that fact for as long as no-one mentions it too loudly. Technically we can't oust her without violent revolution, but in actuality we all know that we can (as have many of her subjects in ex-Empire countries); both we and her pretend that we can't for as long as she behaves like we can (but equally, as she's only around for the image of the thing, she's not allowed to mention it either so as not to wreck the illusion).
The upshot of all this is no-one is actually terribly sure what will happen if, for example, the government tries to take away an important right. Maybe they'll be allowed to. Maybe the Queen (who technically has to sign off every single law personally) might refuse to pass it in to law (for her own self-preservation if nothing else). Maybe that bloody revolution everyone seems to have had might finally happen in Britain (we're only a couple of centuries late to the party). Maybe the Scots and the Welsh might get together and liberate the English. Maybe option D. It's anyone's guess.
Britain can be confusing.
Its difficult to argue with the fact that, previously, students didn't need to buy a laptop, while now they do. That's an increase in the real cost of tuition by the cost of a laptop. For a student who might have been only just paying their way, that might be a difficult cost to swallow.
And even if the $300 isn't a deal breaker, it is typical of the trend in universities. They're forever cutting facilities and expecting students to fill the gap themselves, but never lowering the price.
After all, is UVa cutting the tuition fee by the same amount they're saving every year? Or are they just expecting the students to take a cost off their hands?
Good point well made.
I favour LXDE for my lightweight needs. It's even lighter weight than XFCE, but still looks and feels snazzy enough for my tastes.
I'm totally calling it.
Ditto.
I'm not self-employed, but similar holds true. I'm pretty sure you could identify me from just this online handle, based on posts from this and similar discussion boards.
Fact is, you won't learn much out about me that I wouldn't have told you to your face anyway. I'm on pretty friendly terms with my employer, and am close with my friends, and I doubt anything I've said online would be news to them.
And even if you can find out some more intrusive facts about me (medical history, salary, what have you) I might be annoyed, but it isn't anything that I'd lose any sleep over; it's not like it's a matter of national security...
You only have something to worry about if your online and real-life personae completely and utterly different. And that'd make you a big fat phony.
If they'd done it in a closed pool, they wouldn't have got the same result as they did.
The test was to see if this is a viable method of carbon capture. Due to the little sea creatures, turns out that it isn't viable. That's an important result that they're very glad they've found out now, so they can adjust their research accordingly.
Thus the experiment was a success.
It's a "fiscal stimulus", in computer form.
These tests are designed (or should be if they're done properly) to be extremely difficult to lie to. By asking you each question 5 times, in completely unrelated wording (and hopefully without you noticing it's the same question), they work on the basis that you won't be able to lie 100% consistently. If there's any difference between your answer to said 5 mirrored questions, they disregard the result from that/those questions. It's questionnaire's 101.
Not that I can vouch that this questionnaire has been done properly. I neither have nor want to read 600 odd questions (or 75, for that matter) in great detail for the purposes of a /. thread...