I'm going to like blogs as long as interesting people keep writing them, of course, like TV, it's up to you if you read crap.
Lessig's blog is crap? I don't think so. The Bagdad blogger, crap? No, it's historic... we actually have civilian communication from within a country we're attacking! holy changed world batman.
and you're premise about following rules to get ideas across... what if your ideas don't fit the rule?
you do not have to spell correctly to be comprehended, and you don't have to spell correctly to comprehend.
In fact, the idea of using comprehend to mean "understand" comes from the Stoics, who thought of understanding something, percieving it, as grasping it, and holding it in the mind. It specifically had nothing to do with the encoding, just if the concept got through. IOW, you can comprehend even if the communication channel is noisy. If it's too noisy, no, which is why grammar is more important than spelling. Any spelling mistake that still leaves clear what word was intended introduces a very small amount of noise only. e.g. "nothnig", in context was clearly "nothing", and man readers wouldn't even NOTICE it was mispelled.
Why do you care if the machine does the spelling or not. I do not get it.
The brain is finite... are there not better things to do than take the language too seriously? I mean, the grammar, the spelling, everything changes not-very-gradually over time. If you like seeing well spelled words, that is more understandable to me than wanting to see mispellings to tell you some deeper truth. What do you think it tells you?
I cannot imagine it really tells you anything genuine, as there are many causes for mispelling with diverse causes. The content counts more than the encoding. If the encoding is not bad enough to be ambiguous, which most mispellings are not, no harm no foul, I think. What's between the lines, tells you the quality of the thinking.
Mispelling can be a distraction, I admit, but again, why not have the machine clean that up, it's not hiding anything, just removing a bit of noise in the signal... the signal which is actually broadcast form of an idea formin' in their 'ead.
Quality of spelling is for people that are good at polishing product, typesetters and whatnot, it's a valid skill, don't get me wrong. I admire a polished piece of work.
Even if spelling were important though to spell well some place like slashdot requires two things of me, to slow down a notch (type slower than I think, which is already the case without slowing down more), and proof reading. If you proofread even once, sentance by sentence, is the double in time cost worth the added clarity? If so, how often is it worth it, what percentage of your signal would have gotten through. Which takes less time, to clarify again in the future, or to slow down and get it right the first time.
Same answer as always: depends on the circumstance. Blogs are the spelling-doesn't-really-count circumstance I'd vote.
It's the twenty first century and good spelling is a matter for an efficiency expert.
that sounds reasonable... it does matter what you do for a living. As a software engineer... I'll continue to feel free putting up 5 yr old kid art, printouts, and various toys. Represent!!!:)
because if you are.... it's not grandma's fault if you find her 30 pictures indescribably captivating... perhaps it's ADD, or you just don't like your work and are looking for something to distract you.
Now, I can understand if you don't like working at a desk with a three month old sandwich with an ant line leading to and from it... but pictures? maybe you should work at an interior designer with such fine and conclusive taste?
>Let me be clear. I would kill, with my bare hands, each and every person reading this post if it meant I could have a chance to go into space. For those with the fire for exploration, the drive is *that* strong. And it's a tragedy that the rest of humanity has lost it. I can only hope that someday they'll find it again.
well, this is trite of me, but --- maybe the problem is a society that thinks in terms of might and destruction. You would kill people to get in space... but would you quite your job, go back to school, and become an astronaut? would you... well. you get my cheap-shot point.
is the holy grail of advertising. Explaining what Linux IS is boring for a TV spot, people don't care, won't understand. But if everybody says "oh, I've heard of that" when IBM is trying to tell them what linux does and is during a sales presentation... people will be interested to learn what this thing they "know about" really is.
but it really is as close as it will be for another 60,000 years, what is wrong with using that event to get the whole world to go out and take a look at mars.
It's marketing, and it is a beautiful site when it's close. What you don't understand is that people don't want to go out and look at mars every time it's at opposition... about once every 60,000 years is enough for them --- it's a marketing event for astronomy and what's wrong with that? what's to debunk?
and even if it failed, it would show compassion and be a good "we tried" moment of failed heroism.
And most importantly, we would figure out why we failed from trying, and we would know better what small things could be done to have enabled our plans.
Trying to save them would have been a great moment of national strength win or fail. The whole world would have tried to help us.
Slashdot Mirror
until I read the reply that pointed out a spelling problem, I didn't even notice you spelled arithmetic wrong in your title.
I think it is inefficient for me as a reader to worry about spelling ---
I'm going to like blogs as long as interesting people keep writing them, of course, like TV, it's up to you if you read crap.
Lessig's blog is crap? I don't think so. The Bagdad blogger, crap? No, it's historic... we actually have civilian communication from within a country we're attacking! holy changed world batman.
and you're premise about following rules to get ideas across... what if your ideas don't fit the rule?
you do not have to spell correctly to be comprehended, and you don't have to spell correctly to comprehend.
In fact, the idea of using comprehend to mean "understand" comes from the Stoics, who thought of understanding something, percieving it, as grasping it, and holding it in the mind. It specifically had nothing to do with the encoding, just if the concept got through. IOW, you can comprehend even if the communication channel is noisy. If it's too noisy, no, which is why grammar is more important than spelling. Any spelling mistake that still leaves clear what word was intended introduces a very small amount of noise only. e.g. "nothnig", in context was clearly "nothing", and man readers wouldn't even NOTICE it was mispelled.
except I can spell, I just don't bother. I'm a lazy bastard when it comes to spelling.
Why do you care if the machine does the spelling or not. I do not get it.
The brain is finite... are there not better things to do than take the language too seriously? I mean, the grammar, the spelling, everything changes not-very-gradually over time. If you like seeing well spelled words, that is more understandable to me than wanting to see mispellings to tell you some deeper truth. What do you think it tells you?
I cannot imagine it really tells you anything genuine, as there are many causes for mispelling with diverse causes. The content counts more than the encoding. If the encoding is not bad enough to be ambiguous, which most mispellings are not, no harm no foul, I think. What's between the lines, tells you the quality of the thinking.
Mispelling can be a distraction, I admit, but again, why not have the machine clean that up, it's not hiding anything, just removing a bit of noise in the signal... the signal which is actually broadcast form of an idea formin' in their 'ead.
Quality of spelling is for people that are good at polishing product, typesetters and whatnot, it's a valid skill, don't get me wrong. I admire a polished piece of work.
Even if spelling were important though to spell well some place like slashdot requires two things of me, to slow down a notch (type slower than I think, which is already the case without slowing down more), and proof reading. If you proofread even once, sentance by sentence, is the double in time cost worth the added clarity? If so, how often is it worth it, what percentage of your signal would have gotten through. Which takes less time, to clarify again in the future, or to slow down and get it right the first time.
Same answer as always: depends on the circumstance. Blogs are the spelling-doesn't-really-count circumstance I'd vote.
It's the twenty first century and good spelling is a matter for an efficiency expert.
It should have been anonymous because of the spelling... good points though.
spelling has nothnig to do with intelligence.
Yeah... doesn't Darl know ESR is nuts!? He best watch out.
that sounds reasonable... it does matter what you do for a living. As a software engineer... I'll continue to feel free putting up 5 yr old kid art, printouts, and various toys. Represent!!! :)
because if you are.... it's not grandma's fault if you find her 30 pictures indescribably captivating... perhaps it's ADD, or you just don't like your work and are looking for something to distract you.
:)
Now, I can understand if you don't like working at a desk with a three month old sandwich with an ant line leading to and from it... but pictures? maybe you should work at an interior designer with such fine and conclusive taste?
or maybe it was just funny? I should laugh?
... it's cluless to think purges solve cultural problems. nope. Yeah I know it was a joke! An ironic one!
...was also a shitty company! Having a linux distro means nothing.
>Let me be clear. I would kill, with my bare hands, each and every person reading this post if it meant I could have a chance to go into space. For those with the fire for exploration, the drive is *that* strong. And it's a tragedy that the rest of humanity has lost it. I can only hope that someday they'll find it again.
well, this is trite of me, but --- maybe the problem is a society that thinks in terms of might and destruction. You would kill people to get in space... but would you quite your job, go back to school, and become an astronaut? would you... well. you get my cheap-shot point.
>It is occasionally just to put a hole in your fellow human, when said human seeks to do harm to you and your kin, and has no just reason to do so.
in my experience people will fire the gun even if the person does have just reason to seek to harm them!
just the way it works.
to me
no, because this isn't about screwing your competitors, it's about screwing your partners, company founders, and employees.
It's just been replaced by this little linux server over here.
is the holy grail of advertising. Explaining what Linux IS is boring for a TV spot, people don't care, won't understand. But if everybody says "oh, I've heard of that" when IBM is trying to tell them what linux does and is during a sales presentation... people will be interested to learn what this thing they "know about" really is.
Of course, I just defended a pretty lame ad.
there is no such think as "minoring" in a subject.
btw, I don't know what you are talking about, when earth and mars are closest, mars is always at opposition.
The difference this time is that mars is also near perhelion while earth is near aphelion....
but it really is as close as it will be for another 60,000 years, what is wrong with using that event to get the whole world to go out and take a look at mars.
It's marketing, and it is a beautiful site when it's close. What you don't understand is that people don't want to go out and look at mars every time it's at opposition... about once every 60,000 years is enough for them --- it's a marketing event for astronomy and what's wrong with that? what's to debunk?
cruel and unusual punishment.
porky pig and elmer, now that's funny!
and then if that's not bad enough the fscking moderators-on-crack think that's funny!
good luck.
so basically "they should just eat cake"?
and even if it failed, it would show compassion and be a good "we tried" moment of failed heroism.
And most importantly, we would figure out why we failed from trying, and we would know better what small things could be done to have enabled our plans.
Trying to save them would have been a great moment of national strength win or fail. The whole world would have tried to help us.
you just sell the promise not to sue for breathing it.