"Li Kai, director in charge of the IP business for CNNIC's international department, says that if a netizen wants to get access to the Internet, an IP address will be necessary to analyze the domain name and view the pages."
Isn't this stating the painfully obvious? Haven't we always had to have an IP address to access the Internet and view web pages?
King George III (and by George I/don't/ mean Bush) is alive and well, residing very close to where the American Revolution began. The Fifth Columnists / useful idiots are well positioned and ready to re-implement the King's policies and tactics.
OK, then, I challenge you to share even one fact with the class for which a corresponding question cannot be formulated.
A question un-asked is a question nonetheless. Data is always information, regardless of whether or not the question has been asked and whether or not it is relevant to the question you did ask.
Actually, when making the comparison, it is generally untrue to say that "intelligent people have to work every bit as hard."
Intelligence is not innate knowledge of anything, it is potential, the ability to learn and understand. In one way, you can compare intelligence to an engine. An engine in a (non-hybrid) Toyota Corolla is, at the mechanical heart of it, very similar to that of a Bugatti Veyron. However, for each rotation of the crankshaft at the same RPM, the Bugatti produces FAR more power than the Corolla. Similarly, someone with an IQ of 140+ will "go farther" (given the same amount of time and effort) than someone with an average IQ, even if they both start with a zero knowledge set. This is not a value statement about the individuals, nor is it license to slack for the person with more intelligence, it is merely the acknowledgement of the fact that, to accomplish similar knowledge or proficiency, intelligent people generally do not have to work as hard.
That an incredible amount of data exists on any given topic does nothing to describe relationships, causality, precision, accuracy, distribution, correlation, or anything else. Data is information, and information must be processed in order to make it meaningful. Additionally, everything that's written, printed, published, etc, is not necessarily true, accurate, precise, etc.
If anything, the Google phenomenon demands more rigorous examination by accepted methods.
The preceding message has been brought to you by Captain Obvious and the letters O,R,L,Y.
Isn't it funny, not ha-ha, how some of those who wrap themselves in the First Amendment, and who claim to be the most open minded and tolerant, are the ones who would attack a group whose political affiliation is different?
Tolerance n. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
Tolerance, Politically Correct n. The capacity to slander, libel, ridicule, belittle, attack, or otherwise marginalize anyone who adheres to moral, religious, or political views which are not Politically Correct. See also: hypocrisy
Slashdot Mirror
Not one solitary mention of cold fusion? not even an honorable mention?
Pfffft, some list that is...
"Li Kai, director in charge of the IP business for CNNIC's international department, says that if a netizen wants to get access to the Internet, an IP address will be necessary to analyze the domain name and view the pages."
Isn't this stating the painfully obvious? Haven't we always had to have an IP address to access the Internet and view web pages?
King George III (and by George I /don't/ mean Bush) is alive and well, residing very close to where the American Revolution began. The Fifth Columnists / useful idiots are well positioned and ready to re-implement the King's policies and tactics.
OK, then, I challenge you to share even one fact with the class for which a corresponding question cannot be formulated.
A question un-asked is a question nonetheless. Data is always information, regardless of whether or not the question has been asked and whether or not it is relevant to the question you did ask.
Actually, when making the comparison, it is generally untrue to say that "intelligent people have to work every bit as hard."
Intelligence is not innate knowledge of anything, it is potential, the ability to learn and understand. In one way, you can compare intelligence to an engine. An engine in a (non-hybrid) Toyota Corolla is, at the mechanical heart of it, very similar to that of a Bugatti Veyron. However, for each rotation of the crankshaft at the same RPM, the Bugatti produces FAR more power than the Corolla. Similarly, someone with an IQ of 140+ will "go farther" (given the same amount of time and effort) than someone with an average IQ, even if they both start with a zero knowledge set. This is not a value statement about the individuals, nor is it license to slack for the person with more intelligence, it is merely the acknowledgement of the fact that, to accomplish similar knowledge or proficiency, intelligent people generally do not have to work as hard.
</tangent>
Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread.
That an incredible amount of data exists on any given topic does nothing to describe relationships, causality, precision, accuracy, distribution, correlation, or anything else. Data is information, and information must be processed in order to make it meaningful. Additionally, everything that's written, printed, published, etc, is not necessarily true, accurate, precise, etc.
If anything, the Google phenomenon demands more rigorous examination by accepted methods.
The preceding message has been brought to you by Captain Obvious and the letters O,R,L,Y.
As a member of the Choctaw Nation (my great-grandfather was an original enrollee), I'm proud that the language has been recognized as worth learning.
If you are interested, here is a link to Chahta Anumpa (Choctaw Language) classes via the Internet.
You can click here for more information about the Choctaw Nation.
Well said.
Isn't it funny, not ha-ha, how some of those who wrap themselves in the First Amendment, and who claim to be the most open minded and tolerant, are the ones who would attack a group whose political affiliation is different?
Tolerance n. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
Tolerance, Politically Correct n. The capacity to slander, libel, ridicule, belittle, attack, or otherwise marginalize anyone who adheres to moral, religious, or political views which are not Politically Correct. See also: hypocrisy