Actually, I adjusted fairly well to being able to type in both QWERTY and Dvorak at the same time. I had two computers, my PC Desktop was Dvorak, and my Mac Laptop was QWERTY.
The odd thing was that I wouldn't even have to think about which layout to type on, it was just a natural effect apparently of the keyboard. (I'd say of the computer, but it was kind of odd that the keyboard "feel" itself was a result of my layout indication, not anything else)
Now, I use primarily a German layout at home, (biggest difference is the switching of Y and Z, and then a number of non-alphanumeric keys) I used a normal QWERTY at work, and occationally, I can use Dvorak. I can really just slip into whichever is active. (I got in the habit of typing the left hand home row to figure out which layout I was using. asdf or aoeu, and it was obvious.)
Now, even though I don't use the Dvorak layout hardly at all anymore (because I like my umlauted keys readily available), and everywhere else likes to use standard QWERTY, but I can pretty easily switch.
This would be typed with the Dvorak keyboard... a lot of mistypes but still quite usable...
I was hoping someone would provide this information. Thanks for the clarification. I think a lot of it also had to do with the fact that I was just getting into OpenBSD right when the problem was discovered and solved.
Hard to remember what a site said when 99% of your history with the site said one thing.
Looking at my history, I started a new job on June 2002, which is right about when this specific event happened, and thus, would fit perfectly into the space represented by the two archive.org histories.
I'm more surprised that I didn't add any tag-subjunctive or indefinite to the statement. Usually, if I have any doubts at all about the fact of my statement (which I will assure you, I was wishing I could pull up an archive on the sites before making the comment) I'll do something like that.
In fact, it's the most frustrating thing to me when people *don't* use the subjunctive when they should, for instance, Kerry saying "When I'm President..." pretty bold claim about the future that no one is sure of. (Just for the record, I'd be just as bothered by Bush saying "When I'm reelected.") Anyways, I'm getting off-topic.
To get back on topic, thanks, I wanted to see an archive history of the site, and I'm damned to hell surprised that I expressed so much certainty in my wording that said that the site said it before. Like I said, pattern-matching has nasty habits when you only have biased data.
Me and the rest of the Free Software movement. Fortunately in English there's not difference between the inclusive (we including you) and the exclusive (we and not you) first person singular.
So thus, to all you people, who don't want Free Software, it's exclusive.
To all you people, who see the benifits to Free Software, it's inclusive.
No matter how cheap it is, how long will you hold on to a patent that isn't making money?
True, there were multiple companies. I'm a little fuzy on the details myself. I do know that one company produced the self-contained cartridges, but no one would license the technology (or weren't allowed to) and I also know for certain, that they stopped the patent because it wasn't making enough money, and that almost immediately every company in the US began producing self-contained cartridges.
As for the military, the military has used about 4 standard rifles in their entire history. In the revolutionary war, they were using non-standard muskets, in the civil war they were still using un-cased ammunition (despite this technology being available already), then they had the M1 from either WWI, or WW2, until Vietnam, at which point they switched to the M16.
Now, do you *really* think that the military of that time being incredibly slow to adopt new technology in weapons, would even care about this? Because History proves that they were not at all interested. The cost to refit the military, was beyond any benifits to be gained.
And your points *are* valid, especially today, but fact is that people all the time are screwed out of earnings on their intellectual property (patent-wise) from companies choosing to collectively wait rather than pay. (especially in a market where people aren't aching for new technology. When people were still buying audio tapes for extortionistic prices, why pay money to someone to make a new technology that will reduce your margin?)
clock for clock, it's almost impossible to *not* beat the Pentium 4. I mean, it does so little on each individual clock-cycle in its pipeline, that it's ridiculous.
The Alpha beats just about everything I've heard of clock-for-clock, same with the Itanium. But when's the last time people cared about clock-for-clock performance rather than MHz.
If you want something that beats the P4 clock-for-clock, start looking at non-x86 architectures. PowerPC, Alpha, Itanium, they're all better architectures, because they were designed with an air of sanity.
There have been a number of people who patent really good ideas (for instance, self-contained cartridges for bullets), but the companies just wait for these patents to expire if the person isn't willing to be "exploited".
The do this, because even if the person *could* extend the patent, they can't, because they're not making money from the invention, so it's usually just as good to throw the money into the toilet as to renew a non-income-generating patent.
Patents protect people with money, and companies with money, don't think much of anything else. Otherwise, they'll usually just wait out a patent. It's in their interests. Spend tons of money now, or wait until the patent expires, then you can get it yourself, because the plans and ideas are then public domain.
That's the thing though, it was "one in the last ___ years" before the problem too.
Oh well, doesn't matter much anymore.
The funniest thing was that I had patched 4 or 5 other systems against the bug, but I forgot to patch the one system that was running OpenSSH in the environment it was originally designed in.
*sigh* On the other note, I learned about the "system immutable" flag. That was something good to know. It was a little weird not having overridable write permission to my/etc/pf.conf file as root. "WTF? What do you mean permission denied!? I'm _ROOT!_"
Very true... let me weigh in with my experience running an unpatched OpenBSD box.
"Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 8 years!"
That didn't go ++ when the OpenSSH hole gave some hacker access to my machine remotely. Or was the number fixed after the default install doesn't open any ports?
Either way, it's misleading. Not that I don't *like* OpenBSD, it's just upsetting that they're not more open about it being just as vulnerable unpatched as any OS is.
Oh, I entirely agree with you, but if you'd RTA, you'd notice that they've closed sites due to "superstition". Which in China, what Christianity would fall under.
But you're very right. They do uphold many values, but not because of any faith-like morality, but rather a terrestrial morality.
It was explained to us in my East Asian history class, that Confusionism (upon which just about the entire Chinese culture is based on, and most of the East Asian cultures have been influenced by) is entirely non-religious. It just teaches things that are just plain a good idea when looking at it from a culture standpoint. Fidelity is the driving factor for them, not "family values" or "respect your elders" It's obedience to those superior than you.
So, to break it all down in terms that are easy, Confusionism is primarily about "do what is best for the community", and "respect all authority". While Christianity boils down to two rules, "Love thy God with all thy Heart", and "Love thy Neighbor as thou would love thyself." Everything else is just details.
*sigh* I'm saying that with the definitions that China employs, they view Christianity as a superstitious group. You have to recall that China is officially athiest. Thus, to them, any belief in a God would be a superstition.
From www.dictionary.com:
A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
Your view of religion may be totally founded to you, but I assure you that to any athiest your belief in an unseen God, who's existance cannot be observably proven by Science, to be a belief irrationally maintained by ignorance of the Laws of Nature.
Don't get narrow minded about definitions. Christianity has it's absolute point of view, and I agree with it myself. But to an Athiest the constant belief of humans in a more powerful (in fact, INFINITELY powerful) being is irrational, and flies to them in the face of everything they know.
Basicly, in China, Christianity *is* superstition, and you can argue with me all you want, but fact is, that China defines Christianity as superstition.
I don't know what classes you took in College, but my CS classes fit at least one definition of this.
There's a difference between a science, and a *lab* science, or a *physical* science.
2) But the point is, that they *are* Democratic. They just have very different modes of operation in their government than the freer and closer-to-true-democracy governments that are out there.
Honestly, as far as true democracy only a few local governments actually have a true democracy (in America, it goes no larger than towns. There are no counties, nor states, and of course the federal government isn't)
Basicly, both of your comments show a restricted (although humourous) view of both "Science" and "Democracy". But just remember, just because something doesn't fit into your narrow defition and conotations of a word, doesn't mean that they do not fit in the strictest of definitions.
Seriously, God help the United States when/if they ever realize this.
Actually, they'd ban this message, because it exhibits "superstition". I'd complain about this more, except it's all left up to definition of the Government.
For instance, China sees Christianity as subversive and superstition. So, they repress it.
In Germany, Scientology is seen as potentially subversive, and Germany taking a very strong stance against radical groups (go figure why... I mean, having been taken over by a radical faction that caused some of the most infamous crimes in the world? They wouldn't be paranoid about that anymore would they?) have repessed Sociology. There are a lot of Scientologists that gripe all the time that Germany is repressing them. Heck, it's for a good point, they repress *all* radical and reactionary groups.
But, back on topic, Christians around the world are upset at China, and gripe about it a lot. Although, I suppose one difference is that Germany doesn't imprision and execute people who preach Scientology, they just don't recognize it as a valid religion. (Thus, no tax benifits for donations, and they recieve none of the tax collected by the government for the Churches)
Not entirely. The US is a Democratic Republic. We are a democracy, just not as much a democracy as other governments.
Likely, China is a democracy. It just doesn't really mean much because the vote is so controlled. But they still allow *citizens* to vote. (Keyword: Citizen. If you define Citizen to be "white land-owning male" then you have early America, if you defined Citizen to be "member of the communist party" then you have what the USSR was)
This confuses the heck out of people when they're told that East Germany was "Deutsche Democratische Republik" (German Democratic Republic) Anytime I tell an American about this, they say, "But they were a communist state!" It just confuses people to pit Democracy against Communism. Because they're apples and oranges.
Yes, there's always a cost, but if we don't do anything look at what we lose if we were wrong. We lose the entire environment. The loss of misdirected actions is trivial and insiginificant compared to the loss of our environment.
It's the same philosophical reasoning a person gave towards believe in God. It's refered to as his Gamble. (I don't remember the name) In terms of believing in God, it's viewed as a very cold, and heartless approach to show why one should believe in God.
But in our modern society where we have the potential to effect our environment greatly the cold-hearted gambles have to be looked at. Do you go with the option for awesome-gains, and a possible minor loss? Or do you go with the option for minimal gains, and possible majoral loss? It doesn't make sense to make a bet on something that doesn't get you the most reward, and if you do the math, if each possibility is hit on 50:50, then a society that would have responded towards fixing the problem will have a higher reward in all cases than a society that betted on it not being their problem.
The last sentence again says, is our modern luxury lifestyle worth so much to you that you would even DARE risk losing our environmental climate over it?
Read it again. I didn't say MAKE COMPANIES GO UNDER.
I said do *SOMETHING* to work towards making ourselves Green.
I don't want to see the US Economy destroyed, but there are things that can still be done to get ourselves green.
Now as for saying that you don't think there are people who willingly pollute. You're nuts. There are plenty of people who willingly pollute. Your statement that no one wants to willingly pollute is like saying that no one willingly kills people. Murder happens, as does *UNNECESSARY* Pollution.
I wouldn't tear down a company just because it wasn't going green fast enough, but I would damn sure tear down a company that was intentionally, and deliberately polluting. And it *DOES* happen. And these companies don't deserve to be making money at the direct consequence of our environment.
And you say there's nothing we can do to destroy the environment in 100 years? The Dust Bowl was an almost instantaneous climate change, as a direct result of human actions! If you don't believe that it's possible that pollution and such can have direct and immediate impacts on our environment and *us* as human beings, then you're naive, and need to look back at history.
Let me just remind you of a group of naive people who though that the black plague was caused by something entirely unrelated to their filth while throwing their raw sewage out the window onto the street! They were *asking* to die, and I'm sure that anyone who called for santization and cleanliness was met with the same sceptism, of "oh, that's ridiciulous HAHAHAHA!"
Fact of the matter is we are living in the same filthy situation, polluting when we don't have to, and damaging our environment which is already (regardless of our actions or not) moving towards an extreme. And we're *HAPPY* with that, and we don't seem to want to fix it. That's IDIOCY to me.
You know, reading your comment just reminded me of a very important fact.
People are saying that mankind is incapable of effecting our environment to a massive degree? Did they like... forget about the US dustbowl? It did happen, and it happened because farmers were cosolidating lands and no longer had hedgerows to keep the wind from building up.
My sociology professor indicated that that was the original reason for the start of the government subsidizing farmers to keep undeveloped land.
Statistically, it all makes sense, and you just can't deny that human actions have had serious, drastic, and non-linear impacts upon the environment.
I did a paper for my chemistry class about global warming. I basicly said, "It's undeniable that the climate is warming up. You can debate whether mankind is responsible until you're blue in the face, but let's look at the possibilities: 1) we're responsible and we fix it. We're way better off than if we hadn't done anything at all, 2) we're responsible and we do nothing to fix it. We're way worse off than if we had done something. 3) we're not responsible and we "fix" it. We've lost out on money, and time fixing something that didn't need to be fixed, but don't have any serious negative consequences. and last 4) we're not responsible, and we don't do anything to "fix" it. We literally gain nor lose nothing."
Now, do the math. Our payout is significantly better if we fix the stupid problem. So whether we're at fault or not, we're better off cleaning everything up! Is your fossil-fuel transportation device that important to you, that you would risk serious climactic damage??? It's not to me.
The reason why "tsu" is difficult to pronounce for English, is because it is an invalid phomene in English. (at the beginning of a word, in the middle of a word, it's alright) Thus, most americans tend to pronounce "tsunami" as "sunami".
Yes, the "ra" line is also difficult, because the Japanese "r" phomene is not the same as either of English's two phomenes "l" or "r", but rather is somewhere kind of in between.
The "fu" syllable is difficult, because it's also not like the English "f", it's actually a bilabial frictive, instead of a labio-dental frictive. If that doesn't make sense to you, the Japanese "f" is pronounced with both lips, rather than a lip and teeth.
Yes, computer language sytax is significantly easier than spoken languages. I got a job, and my first task was to fix a y2k problem in a perl program. I was like "I really don't know perl that well." His response was somewhere between "tough" and "you'll learn".
I've done some looking into the Korean Hangul, I can recognize it easily enough, and I know how logical, and simplistic it is, but I just haven't really set my mind to the task. Couldn't be harder than the Japanese syllabaries with Kanji.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I adjusted fairly well to being able to type in both QWERTY and Dvorak at the same time. I had two computers, my PC Desktop was Dvorak, and my Mac Laptop was QWERTY.
The odd thing was that I wouldn't even have to think about which layout to type on, it was just a natural effect apparently of the keyboard. (I'd say of the computer, but it was kind of odd that the keyboard "feel" itself was a result of my layout indication, not anything else)
Now, I use primarily a German layout at home, (biggest difference is the switching of Y and Z, and then a number of non-alphanumeric keys) I used a normal QWERTY at work, and occationally, I can use Dvorak. I can really just slip into whichever is active. (I got in the habit of typing the left hand home row to figure out which layout I was using. asdf or aoeu, and it was obvious.)
Now, even though I don't use the Dvorak layout hardly at all anymore (because I like my umlauted keys readily available), and everywhere else likes to use standard QWERTY, but I can pretty easily switch.
This would be typed with the Dvorak keyboard... a lot of mistypes but still quite usable...
Yeah, that's why I'm switching to OpenBSD. Does anyone know where the Microsoft-bashing anti-Linux pro-OpenBSD Slashdot is?
I was hoping someone would provide this information. Thanks for the clarification. I think a lot of it also had to do with the fact that I was just getting into OpenBSD right when the problem was discovered and solved.
Hard to remember what a site said when 99% of your history with the site said one thing.
Looking at my history, I started a new job on June 2002, which is right about when this specific event happened, and thus, would fit perfectly into the space represented by the two archive.org histories.
I'm more surprised that I didn't add any tag-subjunctive or indefinite to the statement. Usually, if I have any doubts at all about the fact of my statement (which I will assure you, I was wishing I could pull up an archive on the sites before making the comment) I'll do something like that.
In fact, it's the most frustrating thing to me when people *don't* use the subjunctive when they should, for instance, Kerry saying "When I'm President..." pretty bold claim about the future that no one is sure of. (Just for the record, I'd be just as bothered by Bush saying "When I'm reelected.") Anyways, I'm getting off-topic.
To get back on topic, thanks, I wanted to see an archive history of the site, and I'm damned to hell surprised that I expressed so much certainty in my wording that said that the site said it before. Like I said, pattern-matching has nasty habits when you only have biased data.
Me and the rest of the Free Software movement. Fortunately in English there's not difference between the inclusive (we including you) and the exclusive (we and not you) first person singular.
So thus, to all you people, who don't want Free Software, it's exclusive.
To all you people, who see the benifits to Free Software, it's inclusive.
No matter how cheap it is, how long will you hold on to a patent that isn't making money?
True, there were multiple companies. I'm a little fuzy on the details myself. I do know that one company produced the self-contained cartridges, but no one would license the technology (or weren't allowed to) and I also know for certain, that they stopped the patent because it wasn't making enough money, and that almost immediately every company in the US began producing self-contained cartridges.
As for the military, the military has used about 4 standard rifles in their entire history. In the revolutionary war, they were using non-standard muskets, in the civil war they were still using un-cased ammunition (despite this technology being available already), then they had the M1 from either WWI, or WW2, until Vietnam, at which point they switched to the M16.
Now, do you *really* think that the military of that time being incredibly slow to adopt new technology in weapons, would even care about this? Because History proves that they were not at all interested. The cost to refit the military, was beyond any benifits to be gained.
And your points *are* valid, especially today, but fact is that people all the time are screwed out of earnings on their intellectual property (patent-wise) from companies choosing to collectively wait rather than pay. (especially in a market where people aren't aching for new technology. When people were still buying audio tapes for extortionistic prices, why pay money to someone to make a new technology that will reduce your margin?)
clock for clock, it's almost impossible to *not* beat the Pentium 4. I mean, it does so little on each individual clock-cycle in its pipeline, that it's ridiculous.
The Alpha beats just about everything I've heard of clock-for-clock, same with the Itanium. But when's the last time people cared about clock-for-clock performance rather than MHz.
If you want something that beats the P4 clock-for-clock, start looking at non-x86 architectures. PowerPC, Alpha, Itanium, they're all better architectures, because they were designed with an air of sanity.
Not really. The Pentium M has a branch penalty for all branches, where as the Pentium 4 only has a branch penalty for mispredicted branches.
This accute difference would point to them having different cores for certain.
There have been a number of people who patent really good ideas (for instance, self-contained cartridges for bullets), but the companies just wait for these patents to expire if the person isn't willing to be "exploited".
The do this, because even if the person *could* extend the patent, they can't, because they're not making money from the invention, so it's usually just as good to throw the money into the toilet as to renew a non-income-generating patent.
Patents protect people with money, and companies with money, don't think much of anything else. Otherwise, they'll usually just wait out a patent. It's in their interests. Spend tons of money now, or wait until the patent expires, then you can get it yourself, because the plans and ideas are then public domain.
No, free as in speech, not as in beer.
This is the distinct definition of "free software".
Likewise, "open source" does not naturally conclude to the correct meaning either, and thus where the confusion comes in.
But to answer the quote in the article. Are we trying to push morality on the issue? *YES* that's *exactly* what were trying to do.
I'd probably get voted off first anyways.
That's the thing though, it was "one in the last ___ years" before the problem too.
/etc/pf.conf file as root. "WTF? What do you mean permission denied!? I'm _ROOT!_"
Oh well, doesn't matter much anymore.
The funniest thing was that I had patched 4 or 5 other systems against the bug, but I forgot to patch the one system that was running OpenSSH in the environment it was originally designed in.
*sigh* On the other note, I learned about the "system immutable" flag. That was something good to know. It was a little weird not having overridable write permission to my
Very true... let me weigh in with my experience running an unpatched OpenBSD box.
"Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 8 years!"
That didn't go ++ when the OpenSSH hole gave some hacker access to my machine remotely. Or was the number fixed after the default install doesn't open any ports?
Either way, it's misleading. Not that I don't *like* OpenBSD, it's just upsetting that they're not more open about it being just as vulnerable unpatched as any OS is.
Oh, I entirely agree with you, but if you'd RTA, you'd notice that they've closed sites due to "superstition". Which in China, what Christianity would fall under.
But you're very right. They do uphold many values, but not because of any faith-like morality, but rather a terrestrial morality.
It was explained to us in my East Asian history class, that Confusionism (upon which just about the entire Chinese culture is based on, and most of the East Asian cultures have been influenced by) is entirely non-religious. It just teaches things that are just plain a good idea when looking at it from a culture standpoint. Fidelity is the driving factor for them, not "family values" or "respect your elders" It's obedience to those superior than you.
So, to break it all down in terms that are easy, Confusionism is primarily about "do what is best for the community", and "respect all authority". While Christianity boils down to two rules, "Love thy God with all thy Heart", and "Love thy Neighbor as thou would love thyself." Everything else is just details.
From www.dictionary.com:
Your view of religion may be totally founded to you, but I assure you that to any athiest your belief in an unseen God, who's existance cannot be observably proven by Science, to be a belief irrationally maintained by ignorance of the Laws of Nature.
Don't get narrow minded about definitions. Christianity has it's absolute point of view, and I agree with it myself. But to an Athiest the constant belief of humans in a more powerful (in fact, INFINITELY powerful) being is irrational, and flies to them in the face of everything they know.
Basicly, in China, Christianity *is* superstition, and you can argue with me all you want, but fact is, that China defines Christianity as superstition.
1) http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Science
I don't know what classes you took in College, but my CS classes fit at least one definition of this.
There's a difference between a science, and a *lab* science, or a *physical* science.
2) But the point is, that they *are* Democratic. They just have very different modes of operation in their government than the freer and closer-to-true-democracy governments that are out there.
Honestly, as far as true democracy only a few local governments actually have a true democracy (in America, it goes no larger than towns. There are no counties, nor states, and of course the federal government isn't)
Basicly, both of your comments show a restricted (although humourous) view of both "Science" and "Democracy". But just remember, just because something doesn't fit into your narrow defition and conotations of a word, doesn't mean that they do not fit in the strictest of definitions.
Actually, they'd ban this message, because it exhibits "superstition". I'd complain about this more, except it's all left up to definition of the Government.
For instance, China sees Christianity as subversive and superstition. So, they repress it.
In Germany, Scientology is seen as potentially subversive, and Germany taking a very strong stance against radical groups (go figure why... I mean, having been taken over by a radical faction that caused some of the most infamous crimes in the world? They wouldn't be paranoid about that anymore would they?) have repessed Sociology. There are a lot of Scientologists that gripe all the time that Germany is repressing them. Heck, it's for a good point, they repress *all* radical and reactionary groups.
But, back on topic, Christians around the world are upset at China, and gripe about it a lot. Although, I suppose one difference is that Germany doesn't imprision and execute people who preach Scientology, they just don't recognize it as a valid religion. (Thus, no tax benifits for donations, and they recieve none of the tax collected by the government for the Churches)
Not entirely. The US is a Democratic Republic. We are a democracy, just not as much a democracy as other governments.
Likely, China is a democracy. It just doesn't really mean much because the vote is so controlled. But they still allow *citizens* to vote. (Keyword: Citizen. If you define Citizen to be "white land-owning male" then you have early America, if you defined Citizen to be "member of the communist party" then you have what the USSR was)
This confuses the heck out of people when they're told that East Germany was "Deutsche Democratische Republik" (German Democratic Republic) Anytime I tell an American about this, they say, "But they were a communist state!" It just confuses people to pit Democracy against Communism. Because they're apples and oranges.
Not in Germany, it's called "Vandalismus".
Yes, there's always a cost, but if we don't do anything look at what we lose if we were wrong. We lose the entire environment. The loss of misdirected actions is trivial and insiginificant compared to the loss of our environment.
It's the same philosophical reasoning a person gave towards believe in God. It's refered to as his Gamble. (I don't remember the name) In terms of believing in God, it's viewed as a very cold, and heartless approach to show why one should believe in God.
But in our modern society where we have the potential to effect our environment greatly the cold-hearted gambles have to be looked at. Do you go with the option for awesome-gains, and a possible minor loss? Or do you go with the option for minimal gains, and possible majoral loss? It doesn't make sense to make a bet on something that doesn't get you the most reward, and if you do the math, if each possibility is hit on 50:50, then a society that would have responded towards fixing the problem will have a higher reward in all cases than a society that betted on it not being their problem.
The last sentence again says, is our modern luxury lifestyle worth so much to you that you would even DARE risk losing our environmental climate over it?
Read it again. I didn't say MAKE COMPANIES GO UNDER.
I said do *SOMETHING* to work towards making ourselves Green.
I don't want to see the US Economy destroyed, but there are things that can still be done to get ourselves green.
Now as for saying that you don't think there are people who willingly pollute. You're nuts. There are plenty of people who willingly pollute. Your statement that no one wants to willingly pollute is like saying that no one willingly kills people. Murder happens, as does *UNNECESSARY* Pollution.
I wouldn't tear down a company just because it wasn't going green fast enough, but I would damn sure tear down a company that was intentionally, and deliberately polluting. And it *DOES* happen. And these companies don't deserve to be making money at the direct consequence of our environment.
And you say there's nothing we can do to destroy the environment in 100 years? The Dust Bowl was an almost instantaneous climate change, as a direct result of human actions! If you don't believe that it's possible that pollution and such can have direct and immediate impacts on our environment and *us* as human beings, then you're naive, and need to look back at history.
Let me just remind you of a group of naive people who though that the black plague was caused by something entirely unrelated to their filth while throwing their raw sewage out the window onto the street! They were *asking* to die, and I'm sure that anyone who called for santization and cleanliness was met with the same sceptism, of "oh, that's ridiciulous HAHAHAHA!"
Fact of the matter is we are living in the same filthy situation, polluting when we don't have to, and damaging our environment which is already (regardless of our actions or not) moving towards an extreme. And we're *HAPPY* with that, and we don't seem to want to fix it. That's IDIOCY to me.
You know, reading your comment just reminded me of a very important fact.
People are saying that mankind is incapable of effecting our environment to a massive degree? Did they like... forget about the US dustbowl? It did happen, and it happened because farmers were cosolidating lands and no longer had hedgerows to keep the wind from building up.
My sociology professor indicated that that was the original reason for the start of the government subsidizing farmers to keep undeveloped land.
Statistically, it all makes sense, and you just can't deny that human actions have had serious, drastic, and non-linear impacts upon the environment.
I did a paper for my chemistry class about global warming. I basicly said, "It's undeniable that the climate is warming up. You can debate whether mankind is responsible until you're blue in the face, but let's look at the possibilities: 1) we're responsible and we fix it. We're way better off than if we hadn't done anything at all, 2) we're responsible and we do nothing to fix it. We're way worse off than if we had done something. 3) we're not responsible and we "fix" it. We've lost out on money, and time fixing something that didn't need to be fixed, but don't have any serious negative consequences. and last 4) we're not responsible, and we don't do anything to "fix" it. We literally gain nor lose nothing."
Now, do the math. Our payout is significantly better if we fix the stupid problem. So whether we're at fault or not, we're better off cleaning everything up! Is your fossil-fuel transportation device that important to you, that you would risk serious climactic damage??? It's not to me.
Bah! That's ridiculous. I play Alliance all the way baby!
By default the keys of movement in WoW are WASD... the same keys you've been using for years.
On new Mac OSX, when you pick up an unmountable drive the trash can turns from a trash can into an eject symbol.
Does it make enough sense to people now?
The reason why "tsu" is difficult to pronounce for English, is because it is an invalid phomene in English. (at the beginning of a word, in the middle of a word, it's alright) Thus, most americans tend to pronounce "tsunami" as "sunami".
Yes, the "ra" line is also difficult, because the Japanese "r" phomene is not the same as either of English's two phomenes "l" or "r", but rather is somewhere kind of in between.
The "fu" syllable is difficult, because it's also not like the English "f", it's actually a bilabial frictive, instead of a labio-dental frictive. If that doesn't make sense to you, the Japanese "f" is pronounced with both lips, rather than a lip and teeth.
Yes, computer language sytax is significantly easier than spoken languages. I got a job, and my first task was to fix a y2k problem in a perl program. I was like "I really don't know perl that well." His response was somewhere between "tough" and "you'll learn".
I've done some looking into the Korean Hangul, I can recognize it easily enough, and I know how logical, and simplistic it is, but I just haven't really set my mind to the task. Couldn't be harder than the Japanese syllabaries with Kanji.