And don't say "Great" Britain. The country is Britain (short for UK of GB & NI). GB is a geographical term referring to the largest (greatest) of the British isles.
This is subtly wrong.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is made up of four countries: England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales. Great Britain encompasses England, Scotland and Wales "Britain" is usually just short for "Great Britain"...... although in Roman times, "Brittannia" was a Roman province on the island, south of Hadrian's Wall. In this sense 'Great Britain' is to 'Brittannia' as 'Greater London' is to 'London'. And for good measure, "The British Isles" includes Ireland.
So ignoring smaller islands:
- UK = England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales
- Great Britain = England, Scotland, Wales
- British Isles = England, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Scotland, Wales
Nobody will mind you saying you're visiting Great Britain, as long as you actually are doing so.
Whether the rudeness reputation is deserved or not, it really has given all US tourists a bad name, and it's one that is going to be hard to get rid of.
This is entirely true, yet I think most British people quite easily distinguish between the archetypal crass American tourist (Hawaiian shirt, loud voice, rude) and a quiet, respectful person stood in front of them speaking with an American accent.
Similarly, see the racists who are OK with the black people they've met. "Oh yeah, *he*'s OK. It's just the rest of 'em I can't stand."
The area within the circle line of the Tube is smaller than you probably think. Evaluate the walking distance before you take the tube. Sometimes it's quicker to walk. Even when it's not, it's more pleasant and you see more cool stuff.
(Taking a meandering route from Marylebone to Charing Cross the other day, I stumbled upon the former home of both George Bernard Shaw and Virginia Woolf, and also a 'little Venezuela' I never knew existed.)
generally speaking if you cannot get to where you want to go directly from London then it's really not worth the hassle of fighting the UK rail network
I disagree. Get http://transportdirect.info/ to plan your journey. One or two changes should not pose a problem. More might get tedious.
If you use the train 100s of times a year, you're likely to have occasional problems. A couple of tourist trips, ought to work smoothly.
It might be worth planning your rail journeys on weekdays, as there are reduced timetables on Sundays, and engineering works are frequently scheduled for weekends.
I can strongly recommend saying you're a Canadian rather than US citizen. Particularly outside London, American tourists are utterly detested for their rude and pushy behaviour.
Nah. Just don't behave rudely, and people will know you're one of the decent Americans.
I like London. But I'd still say, if it's a two week visit, get the hell out of London for at least half that time, and see some other parts of Britain.
One of the more picturesque cities (Bath, Oxford, York). Or a smaller town. Or some countryside.
Get a guidebook (I like Lonely Planet) and follow your own tastes.
As others have said; your laptop will work with a simple travel plug. It's easy to find WiFi - less easy to find free WiFi.
Most important of all, in London: DO NOT EAT AT AN ANGUS STEAKHOUSE or similar. They are expensive tourist traps that serve revolting food. Nobody goes twice. If you're wise you don't go once.
The meaning is unambiguously "A Japanese dish usually consisting of raw fish, rice, and seaweed, served with a dipping sauce and wasabi."
I think it's pushing it a bit to call a description unambiguous, when it's got the word "usually" in it. That "usually" covers for the fact that you can substitute the raw fish with vegetables, cooked meat or even cooked fish, and it would still be sushi.
Since, as you state, sashimi as a dish does not exist in the US, then there is no reason to use that word to describe the problem.
This simply isn't true. Sashimi is widely available in the US. And yes, it's served in sushi restaurants. But then pasta is often served in pizzerias, and that doesn't make pizza mean pasta.
Learn to love Alaska [romancingalaska.com]
I once had a lovely sushi and sashimi platter in Barrow, Alaska...:)
He means that if you order sushi, it will always contain vinegared rice in some form. Usually in the rolls and nuggets we're used to seeing; sometimes as a bed of rice (sushi donburi).
Cavemen discovered that cooking meat was a good idea some millennia ago and we've been doing it since then, but some people never got the memo because they were on an island or something.
Some historical humans "discovered" that never eating meat and dairy in the same dish was a good idea. They're missing out on lasagne.
Some "discovered" that eating pork was bad. They're missing out on bacon.
Language is communication. If someone says "tuna sushi" and the listener understands what they said, then it is accurate communication and language.
If someone says "tuna sushi", meaning tuna sashimi, and the listener understands it as tuna sushi, then it is inaccurate communication and language.
In this case it might result in someone getting served a meal they hadn't expected. But there are other cases where vagueness in the definition of terms can lead to much more serious and expensive problems.
The point of eating sushi is spend lots of money on very little food.
In Tokyo you can stuff yourself with delicious sushi and sashimi for less than $10. You can eat good sushi almost as cheap in Vancouver. Of course there are top end places in both cities where you can pay orders of magnitude more.
I really wish someone would start a cheap fresh sushi chain in the UK. There's nothing intrinsically expensive about the product.
The point is that you could order sushi and not get fish, but you could never order sushi and not get rice.
I've had sushi containing raw fish. I've had vegetarian sushi. I've had sushi containing cooked fish. I've had sushi containing cooked beef or chicken.
But I've never had sushi that doesn't contain rice, because there's no such thing.
First of all, it's not an OS, so please don't call it an OS.
I'm completely baffled by this. How is it not an OS? I know it's an overloaded term (just the kernel vs. kernel + core userspace) but either way, this ticks the boxes.
need to be able to write/compile/debug software that executes on my actual hardware, not just on some virtual machine in the sky.
It also depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for someone you can set loose unsupervised on vital code right away, then yes, you want to see their code. You don't care about paper qualifications.
Whereas if you're looking for someone to mentor and train up, a graduate is a great starting point.
A CS graduate fresh from college has been exposed to a LOT of concepts, but will only be beginning their journey in writing "real world" code.
Example: one of the subjects I enjoyed most at university was functional programming (we used Miranda - this was 1994). A 'blue collar' programmer would never have been exposed to this, and once I got into my particular version of the 'real world' (a C and Shell shop, to which I later introduced Perl) there was no scope to indulge in functional languages. Yet, functional concepts informed my coding style to the extent that the language allowed it.
But now functional programming is drifting into the mainstream. People are using Javascript's functional features; one of the attractions of languages like Ruby and Groovy is the use of closures; Haskell and Erlang are pure functional languages that look to be taking off for certain problem spaces. And *because* of my degree, I'm well placed to understand these things. That's just an example.
There's all sorts of other stuff that goes on in a CS degree that/indirectly/ affect your ability to develop as a coder. I've never formally used SSADM or Jackson Structured Programming. But both have definitely informed my design decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
Highgate Cemetary
Watch out. It's a communist plot!
And don't say "Great" Britain. The country is Britain (short for UK of GB & NI).
GB is a geographical term referring to the largest (greatest) of the British isles.
This is subtly wrong.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is made up of four countries: England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales. ... although in Roman times, "Brittannia" was a Roman province on the island, south of Hadrian's Wall. In this sense 'Great Britain' is to 'Brittannia' as 'Greater London' is to 'London'.
Great Britain encompasses England, Scotland and Wales
"Britain" is usually just short for "Great Britain"...
And for good measure, "The British Isles" includes Ireland.
So ignoring smaller islands:
- UK = England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales
- Great Britain = England, Scotland, Wales
- British Isles = England, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Scotland, Wales
Nobody will mind you saying you're visiting Great Britain, as long as you actually are doing so.
Whether the rudeness reputation is deserved or not, it really has given all US tourists a bad name, and it's one that is going to be hard to get rid of.
This is entirely true, yet I think most British people quite easily distinguish between the archetypal crass American tourist (Hawaiian shirt, loud voice, rude) and a quiet, respectful person stood in front of them speaking with an American accent.
Similarly, see the racists who are OK with the black people they've met. "Oh yeah, *he*'s OK. It's just the rest of 'em I can't stand."
BIG tip:
The area within the circle line of the Tube is smaller than you probably think. Evaluate the walking distance before you take the tube. Sometimes it's quicker to walk. Even when it's not, it's more pleasant and you see more cool stuff.
(Taking a meandering route from Marylebone to Charing Cross the other day, I stumbled upon the former home of both George Bernard Shaw and Virginia Woolf, and also a 'little Venezuela' I never knew existed.)
generally speaking if you cannot get to where you want to go directly from London then it's really not worth the hassle of fighting the UK rail network
I disagree. Get http://transportdirect.info/ to plan your journey. One or two changes should not pose a problem. More might get tedious.
If you use the train 100s of times a year, you're likely to have occasional problems. A couple of tourist trips, ought to work smoothly.
It might be worth planning your rail journeys on weekdays, as there are reduced timetables on Sundays, and engineering works are frequently scheduled for weekends.
I can strongly recommend saying you're a Canadian rather than US citizen. Particularly outside London, American tourists are utterly detested for their rude and pushy behaviour.
Nah. Just don't behave rudely, and people will know you're one of the decent Americans.
I like London. But I'd still say, if it's a two week visit, get the hell out of London for at least half that time, and see some other parts of Britain.
One of the more picturesque cities (Bath, Oxford, York). Or a smaller town. Or some countryside.
Get a guidebook (I like Lonely Planet) and follow your own tastes.
As others have said; your laptop will work with a simple travel plug. It's easy to find WiFi - less easy to find free WiFi.
Most important of all, in London:
DO NOT EAT AT AN ANGUS STEAKHOUSE or similar. They are expensive tourist traps that serve revolting food. Nobody goes twice. If you're wise you don't go once.
Not to mention that beef has to hang for some time before it's ready to cook - enzymes and microorganisms are tenderizing the meat for us.
[freezing] bursts the cell walls of the fish tissue and results in mushy, flavorless sushi.
This affects anything with cells, e.g. frozen peas. The solution is rapid freezing, which results in smaller ice crystals.
And everywhere I've been, including places outside the US, the menu was always over half seafood
That's par for the course, but even 5% non-fish sushi is enough to disprove "sushi == fish".
Common sushi fillings:
- cream cheese / chive / cucumber
- avocado
- cooked chicken
- cooked duck
- raw or cooked beef
- cooked pork
- cooked fish
The meaning is unambiguously "A Japanese dish usually consisting of raw fish, rice, and seaweed, served with a dipping sauce and wasabi."
I think it's pushing it a bit to call a description unambiguous, when it's got the word "usually" in it. That "usually" covers for the fact that you can substitute the raw fish with vegetables, cooked meat or even cooked fish, and it would still be sushi.
Since, as you state, sashimi as a dish does not exist in the US, then there is no reason to use that word to describe the problem.
This simply isn't true. Sashimi is widely available in the US. And yes, it's served in sushi restaurants. But then pasta is often served in pizzerias, and that doesn't make pizza mean pasta.
Learn to love Alaska [romancingalaska.com]
I once had a lovely sushi and sashimi platter in Barrow, Alaska... :)
Sushi is merely preparing rice and cutting fish.
And programming is merely typing.
Thanks for this. It explains my symptoms many years ago having eaten at a South African seafood restaurant.
Do you mean just the rice?
No he doesn't.
He means that if you order sushi, it will always contain vinegared rice in some form. Usually in the rolls and nuggets we're used to seeing; sometimes as a bed of rice (sushi donburi).
If there's no rice, it ain't sushi.
Cavemen discovered that cooking meat was a good idea some millennia ago and we've been doing it since then, but some people never got the memo because they were on an island or something.
Some historical humans "discovered" that never eating meat and dairy in the same dish was a good idea. They're missing out on lasagne.
Some "discovered" that eating pork was bad. They're missing out on bacon.
Cavemen weren't always right.
Language is communication. If someone says "tuna sushi" and the listener understands what they said, then it is accurate communication and language.
If someone says "tuna sushi", meaning tuna sashimi, and the listener understands it as tuna sushi, then it is inaccurate communication and language.
In this case it might result in someone getting served a meal they hadn't expected. But there are other cases where vagueness in the definition of terms can lead to much more serious and expensive problems.
The point of eating sushi is spend lots of money on very little food.
In Tokyo you can stuff yourself with delicious sushi and sashimi for less than $10. You can eat good sushi almost as cheap in Vancouver. Of course there are top end places in both cities where you can pay orders of magnitude more.
I really wish someone would start a cheap fresh sushi chain in the UK. There's nothing intrinsically expensive about the product.
The point is that you could order sushi and not get fish, but you could never order sushi and not get rice.
I've had sushi containing raw fish.
I've had vegetarian sushi.
I've had sushi containing cooked fish.
I've had sushi containing cooked beef or chicken.
But I've never had sushi that doesn't contain rice, because there's no such thing.
The source is there. Hack in a CLI.
Or implement the CLI app you so desperately want in Javascript and put it on the web.
You do understand that the reason for running it in a VM is so that you can imagine what it would be like on dedicated hardware, right?
This thing will live and die by the price and quality of the hardware it runs on.
First of all, it's not an OS, so please don't call it an OS.
I'm completely baffled by this. How is it not an OS? I know it's an overloaded term (just the kernel vs. kernel + core userspace) but either way, this ticks the boxes.
need to be able to write/compile/debug software that executes on my actual hardware, not just on some virtual machine in the sky.
Why?
this build of ChromeOS requires a gmail account to log into the system.
We have the source code. If you really care about it, you could modify it to not do this.
Me, I'm always logged into Google, and am happy about it.
It also depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for someone you can set loose unsupervised on vital code right away, then yes, you want to see their code. You don't care about paper qualifications.
Whereas if you're looking for someone to mentor and train up, a graduate is a great starting point.
A CS graduate fresh from college has been exposed to a LOT of concepts, but will only be beginning their journey in writing "real world" code.
Example: one of the subjects I enjoyed most at university was functional programming (we used Miranda - this was 1994). A 'blue collar' programmer would never have been exposed to this, and once I got into my particular version of the 'real world' (a C and Shell shop, to which I later introduced Perl) there was no scope to indulge in functional languages. Yet, functional concepts informed my coding style to the extent that the language allowed it.
But now functional programming is drifting into the mainstream. People are using Javascript's functional features; one of the attractions of languages like Ruby and Groovy is the use of closures; Haskell and Erlang are pure functional languages that look to be taking off for certain problem spaces. And *because* of my degree, I'm well placed to understand these things. That's just an example.
There's all sorts of other stuff that goes on in a CS degree that /indirectly/ affect your ability to develop as a coder. I've never formally used SSADM or Jackson Structured Programming. But both have definitely informed my design decisions.
But shouldn't a committee, a congress or cabinet if you will, be even brighter than just an individual?
[hollow laugh]
So yes, there can be such a thing as too educated if, by being too educated, you become oblivious to your own shortcomings.
That would seem to me, is not educated enough. You fix it by learning humility, not by unlearning something.
Great story, but you forgot to tell us the level of education of the guy (more likely committee) who decided to put the lights there.
You don't need to be an engineer to commission an traffic light.
Knowing the limits of your expertise is part of being educated.