Language is artificial anyway. Is it "check" or "cheque"? Or is it "nine," "neun," "nove," or "nona"? Is it it "hacker" or "h4kr"?
A long as people understand what your saying, its correct.
Voting just to vote is non-sence, but...
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
I have always believed that voting just to votie is non-sence. It only helps the "powers that be" stay in power. The reason is that people who are not interested or don't know the issues cannot make an real vote -- i.e., they can't have formed a real oppinion as to who they want in office, and are practically cating random ballots. These ballots are bound to be for the major parties, thus keeping "third" parties out.
However, this does NOT mean you should not vote, and niether do the comment made by main party candidates. What all this should mean is that US citizen who are concern with these issues should consider looking at some of the third party candidates, such as Ralph Nadar or (my favorite) Libertarian candidate Harry Browne. If you don't like any one, then you probably shouldn't vote. But if you just want to keep both major candidate out of office, then please do your self a favor and vote against both of them, not let the one of them stroll into office.
Even if you vote for someone who looses, at least it was a try, and hopefully will send a message that might be noticed. And, if evey simply decides third parties can't win, they are just creating self fulfilling prophesy. I'd rather not vote than support major parties, but Iplan to vote against them both.
When I was in high-school, they made it against the rules to go to the bathroom durring lunch when I was a Junior, because people smoked there.
Whatever you think of smokming or video games, most good things end-up banned to stop something else that scares the authorities. Authorities like to dictate and ""criminals" tempted them to do it. Give humanity enough rope, they'll always hang themselves some how.
As far as the reason, it seem the Malays actually have a slightly more justifiable reason than is often used here. Blood in gore have been in every media from folf lore ("Kill Snowwhite and bring me her lungs and liver"
If you ask me, this sort of thing is one of the strong points of *nix operating systems. Win DOS, you have command.com (unless you run Nortin Commander, etc., IN command.com), and with windows you have one visual shell (explorer) or DOS command com. If you don't like these, your screwed. With Linux (etc.), you can choose, Bash, Tcsh, Zsh, etc., for text shells, and can choose between fvwm, KDE, Gnome, Ice, Xfce, etc., for a gui. I hope none of these "win" (as in, gain hegemony), and am always glad to see another option get some credit (even if I don't plan on leaving KDE).
Why do you simply assume anyone who thinks this is "troll"? The site is more than well enough done to give people not familiar with it the impression that it is real (the incongruent stuff actually enhances this effect to a degree). Further, the story doesn't say a thing about it being a humor site, and at least as many replies to the story say its real as that its a hoax. In
other words, it is a perfectly understandable that those not familiar with Forum 2000 might think it was real (even for a lot of them). Just because you know its a joke doesn't mean everyone else does.
It seems to me that some people are being a bit paranoid (and harsh to say the least) in assuming anyone who thinks the Forum was real is a "troll." Even a very bad troll could come up with something better than that. Methinks a lot of thoughtless folk are flaming nieve innocents, and jumping to unfounded conclusions about "trolls." (Ignorant != troll, troll != gulible.)
I certainly did not make those numbers up -- they were exactly what was taught in high-school science classes -- particularly, chemistry, I think. (It was written in the textbook, too.) It was a long time ago, so I obviously can't give a complete bibliographic refference (though it shared the title of "Chemistry" with virtually every other such textbook). I am certain I remeber the numbers correctly, despite the time elapsed, though it is possible that author refferenced them to cm rather tham m, for some cheesy reason (like assuming this would seem small to "kids"); E -6 m = E -4 cm, E -10 m = E -8 cm, so that would work.
"My" notation, is the "engineering notation" found on most calculators, BTW -- looking at the bottom of the screen reveals that <SUP> is not listed as available HTML codes, so I used this notation rather than exponents.
Note that I wouldn't have given them if I didn't have reason to think those were accurate. It is interesting, that some other replies managed to be informative, rather than just accusational and insulting.
Last time I checked, a Micron was different from a micrometer. Specifically, a micron was E -4 (0.00001) Meters, 100 micrometers, or 0.1 milimeters. A micrometer was E -6 m, An angstrom was E -8 m, and a nanometer was E -9 m. Thus, 10 nanometers would be precisely one angstrom, but actually, 0.0001 microns.
Whose in error? Have I just been uninformed all these years, or is this confusion on the poster part, and a mistake in the original report / news release?
First, paper manuals are readily accessable to the computer illiterate (how well they understand them is another thing). This is valuable when user is just booting themselve. There are still newbies out there, people who are afraid hitting the wrong button might "blow-up" a computer and can't find that [any] key. For those of us who have been using computers for what may seem like forever and find them as natural as walking or talking, this can be an easy fact to forget. And not, not everyone can or will take a class. There a lot of intelligent people who could learn without class, for that mater, if they have instrucations.
Books are often convient than digital manual and e-books. It is generally easier to have a book at your side than to keep switching screans in X or VT, or minimizing / maximizing in Windows or Mac. A book can be accessed with great speed under eyecontrol (i.e., you look toward it), without taking programs off-screen, and can even be compared directly to the screen for verbatim accuracy, with ease, when needed. And this can all be done while using the entire screen for the shell or program ebing used.
Printed books are often faster and easier to navigate. I know some people are thinking, "Is he crazy!?" -- after all, electronic media allow searches, hyperlinking, and quick jumping around. However, book pages can be turned rapidly, even all at once, possitions can be learned, and os forth. Human intelligence may be sloppy in many ways, but is still generally more effective than the best AI, and many searchs don't even have AI, pattern matching. Generally, I can find material in a book much faster, expecially if the book is large.
Some people just can't stand to read from monitors for a long period of time. I know I can't. I have often printed long pages or (even long e-mails, after some formatting) to read them more easily.
Printed matter is much more portable. Not everyone can afford lap-tops and PDAs. Further, books are entirely non-volitile and require no batteries to operate. I can cary books anywhere, even for weeks at a time, and they don't run down and give a blank screen (I could even do this in the middle of the wilderness, on a hide or such, if I wanted). I like to sit in my front yard or nice days and study (both computer-related books and science / medical text); this requires a book, since my towercase and monitor would just not be practical to move outside and back in.
(I should probably note also that reading manuals for something through can be a good thing; cashing the info in your brain is always going to be faster than finding it elsewhere and loading it into your brain then -- and allows more automatic use.)
Books will generally last longer (will CD-ROM drives be easilyavailable in 50 years?) -- this is probably not a big deal with computer manuals, but its worth noting, since other texts are going electronic, too.
The legal and ecconomic dangers involved with copyrighted media have already been discussed by Richard Stallman in a recent article. While changing laws would help, and is a good idea, there would still be a lot of new "grey" areas. Further, I can understand the publishers fear, since electronic media are more readily copiable and could spread quickly in all direction.
All that being said, there are still many uses for which electronic media are better. Large data bases are a good example, as are monitarily free documents (since it remove printing and material costs that a monitarily free distribution won't cover). And, eleectronic media are great for those who use them. Electronic media also make great adjuct refferences for those who preffer printed manuals -- man pages are a wonderful convienence. I also download many free docs, like the LDP and W3C docs, since I can't afford a ton of books on everything. (Comparing the price reveal publishers are making a killing of the computer industries success).
I think a "paperless" society sounds good on the surface, its good appearance is misleading, and based on poorly thought through ideas. Yeah, eccologically speaking, you cut fewer trees. But, trying to recycle batteries (they waer out sooner or later) is an eccological nighmare. A better place to stop using paper would be in container -- re-usable contain, bags, plates, etc., are a great idea! But for distributing large amounts of techincal info paper should remain available.
So, as I see it, electronic media are a great and welcome addition to documentation, and publication in general -- but should not replace paper media, but rather, the two should coexist, so that both there strengths are available.
Slashdot Mirror
Language is artificial anyway. Is it "check" or "cheque"? Or is it "nine," "neun," "nove," or "nona"? Is it it "hacker" or "h4kr"?
A long as people understand what your saying, its correct.
I have always believed that voting just to votie is non-sence. It only helps the "powers that be" stay in power. The reason is that people who are not interested or don't know the issues cannot make an real vote -- i.e., they can't have formed a real oppinion as to who they want in office, and are practically cating random ballots. These ballots are bound to be for the major parties, thus keeping "third" parties out.
However, this does NOT mean you should not vote, and niether do the comment made by main party candidates. What all this should mean is that US citizen who are concern with these issues should consider looking at some of the third party candidates, such as Ralph Nadar or (my favorite) Libertarian candidate Harry Browne. If you don't like any one, then you probably shouldn't vote. But if you just want to keep both major candidate out of office, then please do your self a favor and vote against both of them, not let the one of them stroll into office.
Even if you vote for someone who looses, at least it was a try, and hopefully will send a message that might be noticed. And, if evey simply decides third parties can't win, they are just creating self fulfilling prophesy. I'd rather not vote than support major parties, but Iplan to vote against them both.
Analogues could apply to any democracy, I think.
When I was in high-school, they made it against the rules to go to the bathroom durring lunch when I was a Junior, because people smoked there.
Whatever you think of smokming or video games, most good things end-up banned to stop something else that scares the authorities. Authorities like to dictate and ""criminals" tempted them to do it. Give humanity enough rope, they'll always hang themselves some how.
As far as the reason, it seem the Malays actually have a slightly more justifiable reason than is often used here. Blood in gore have been in every media from folf lore ("Kill Snowwhite and bring me her lungs and liver"
If you ask me, this sort of thing is one of the strong points of *nix operating systems. Win DOS, you have command.com (unless you run Nortin Commander, etc., IN command.com), and with windows you have one visual shell (explorer) or DOS command com. If you don't like these, your screwed. With Linux (etc.), you can choose, Bash, Tcsh, Zsh, etc., for text shells, and can choose between fvwm, KDE, Gnome, Ice, Xfce, etc., for a gui. I hope none of these "win" (as in, gain hegemony), and am always glad to see another option get some credit (even if I don't plan on leaving KDE).
Why do you simply assume anyone who thinks this is "troll"? The site is more than well enough done to give people not familiar with it the impression that it is real (the incongruent stuff actually enhances this effect to a degree). Further, the story doesn't say a thing about it being a humor site, and at least as many replies to the story say its real as that its a hoax. In other words, it is a perfectly understandable that those not familiar with Forum 2000 might think it was real (even for a lot of them). Just because you know its a joke doesn't mean everyone else does.
It seems to me that some people are being a bit paranoid (and harsh to say the least) in assuming anyone who thinks the Forum was real is a "troll." Even a very bad troll could come up with something better than that. Methinks a lot of thoughtless folk are flaming nieve innocents, and jumping to unfounded conclusions about "trolls." (Ignorant != troll, troll != gulible.)
I certainly did not make those numbers up -- they were exactly what was taught in high-school science classes -- particularly, chemistry, I think. (It was written in the textbook, too.) It was a long time ago, so I obviously can't give a complete bibliographic refference (though it shared the title of "Chemistry" with virtually every other such textbook). I am certain I remeber the numbers correctly, despite the time elapsed, though it is possible that author refferenced them to cm rather tham m, for some cheesy reason (like assuming this would seem small to "kids"); E -6 m = E -4 cm, E -10 m = E -8 cm, so that would work.
"My" notation, is the "engineering notation" found on most calculators, BTW -- looking at the bottom of the screen reveals that <SUP> is not listed as available HTML codes, so I used this notation rather than exponents.
Note that I wouldn't have given them if I didn't have reason to think those were accurate. It is interesting, that some other replies managed to be informative, rather than just accusational and insulting.
Last time I checked, a Micron was different from a micrometer. Specifically, a micron was E -4 (0.00001) Meters, 100 micrometers, or 0.1 milimeters. A micrometer was E -6 m, An angstrom was E -8 m, and a nanometer was E -9 m. Thus, 10 nanometers would be precisely one angstrom, but actually, 0.0001 microns.
Whose in error? Have I just been uninformed all these years, or is this confusion on the poster part, and a mistake in the original report / news release?
Paper manuals have several advantages:
Printed matter is much more portable. Not everyone can afford lap-tops and PDAs. Further, books are entirely non-volitile and require no batteries to operate. I can cary books anywhere, even for weeks at a time, and they don't run down and give a blank screen (I could even do this in the middle of the wilderness, on a hide or such, if I wanted). I like to sit in my front yard or nice days and study (both computer-related books and science / medical text); this requires a book, since my towercase and monitor would just not be practical to move outside and back in.
(I should probably note also that reading manuals for something through can be a good thing; cashing the info in your brain is always going to be faster than finding it elsewhere and loading it into your brain then -- and allows more automatic use.)
All that being said, there are still many uses for which electronic media are better. Large data bases are a good example, as are monitarily free documents (since it remove printing and material costs that a monitarily free distribution won't cover). And, eleectronic media are great for those who use them. Electronic media also make great adjuct refferences for those who preffer printed manuals -- man pages are a wonderful convienence. I also download many free docs, like the LDP and W3C docs, since I can't afford a ton of books on everything. (Comparing the price reveal publishers are making a killing of the computer industries success).
I think a "paperless" society sounds good on the surface, its good appearance is misleading, and based on poorly thought through ideas. Yeah, eccologically speaking, you cut fewer trees. But, trying to recycle batteries (they waer out sooner or later) is an eccological nighmare. A better place to stop using paper would be in container -- re-usable contain, bags, plates, etc., are a great idea! But for distributing large amounts of techincal info paper should remain available.
So, as I see it, electronic media are a great and welcome addition to documentation, and publication in general -- but should not replace paper media, but rather, the two should coexist, so that both there strengths are available.