Not to mention some of the products aren't even from 2006, much less 2007. OS X Tiger was released in April 2005. How is that relavent to 2007? Or is it preemptively supposed to say Panther and they just screwed up?
Even as an Apple user, I call bullshit on this "100 best list"
Not to be thick, but since when has security been a selling point for OO? I've heard a lot of things about OO over the years, but not once have I heard, or spoken of security as a selling point. Have I (and all my friends) been out of the loop somehow?
Most people don't consider security when they're thinking of writing a document. They think about how they format their documents, how people will read their documents, and how much that will cost them. Other than that, I think most people don't give a damn. Security just isn't a factor for a word processor in most users minds.
Good grief! Why is it slashdotters only think in the digital realm? Just because more is being produced today doesn't mean everything is digital. Copyright doesn't apply just to digital IP. It applies to written word, digital media, photographs and any other number of things. Yes, 50 years is even too long, but 2 to 5 years is a bit ridiculous. There are plenty of books that I have every intention of reading, but haven't gotten around to yet. Should the author be penalized because I happen to have a long list of books to read and his/her work isn't at the top of my 5 year long list? I don't think so.
The problem is copyright shouldn't be the same for every medium. Maybe a couple of years on certain digital creations, and somewhere between 10 and 12 years for written word, or say 20 years for photography. I don't know the right way to fix it, I just know it's broken. There are plenty of people smarter than I who can fix it.
"If it is a lie so be it but I will say to a child you cannot be a Doctor today, or an astronaut or a President or a CEO (if I add etc etc etc here I trust you will understand my meaning). The wonderful lesson to teach a child is that he can be any one of them and will have 40 or 50 years to do it. In the mean time prepare for life as an adult rather than pretending to be one."
So why should a kid not have the opportunity to learn whether or not they want to be a CEO before they are an adult? Why dictate they can only have one career? Why limit them in any way? You say you want to give them balance and opportunities, but then you limit that? It doesn't make sense.
Different kids have different interests and abilities. Why not encourage them to pursue those abilities to whatever end they want, rather than artificially limiting them? I understand your concern, and generally feel similarly with regard to pushing kids in one direction or another. I think here, though, you've made an assumption about the kid's state of mind and what he wants to do. I think you'd find most kids who weren't enjoying it, wouldn't have garnered any attention from the media because they would not be capable of hiding their disinterest.
This kid can be a CEO today and by the time he's 18 he will have a good understanding of business, economics, marketing, product development, project management, team development, and many many other skills that will be useful whatever he does. Why deny that just because he's "pretending to be an adult". It's one stage of development for all children, he's just taking it in a different direction.
They obviously found the images somehow, or there would be no lawsuit in the first place. It's not hard to do some selective word searching that describes the image content and find specific pictures, especially of "artistic" type images.
Yes, that's the dedication, but this book doesn't have that. I don't remember the exact wording of the thing, but it's not the same as that I'm sure. I found that dedication during my google hunts yesterday. Either way, I'm pretty sure it is just a moderately old edition of the KJV Bible. I don't think it's really over 400 years old, but I know it's over 100 just from the dates written by my family. I think the odds are it's 150 years old at the most, but I havent' verified that yet.
Yeah I googled it too, trying to find more information. My sister actually ahs the book now (she's a book collector of sorts) and is trying to do some more research. It's a family bible with hand written dates of 1880 but I couldn't find a printing date on it anywhere.
While I can't dispute the specific Koran texts, quoting Deutoronomy as the teachings of Christ is simply incorrect. Deuteronomy is from the Old testament, and therefore not "Christian" per se. Christ specifically contradicted many of the old testament teachings.
Do I think the religious teachings are all good? Not a chance. But don't discount your own argument by providing false or incorrect references.
They don't always leave larger exit holes, but it's a general rule, especially for larger caliber weapons. Velocity, slug material, slug design, trajectory, impacts inside the body etc, all have a factor. Obviously if a bullet hits a bone and carries the bone matter with it, it's going to do more damage than just passing through soft tissue. However, if a bullet passes through soft tissue on entry and only hits bone on exit (say being shot at the base of the skull with exit through forehead) it's a possibility that the exit wound isn't particularly large, especially with high velocity rounds. Lots of factors will affect the final result.
Fingerprints are used to identify criminals. If your fingerprints are on file, you have the possibility (albeit small) of being falsely identified. Your prints also have the possibility of being "faked" and you being therefore framed. Yes this possibility is even smaller than a false positive identification, but it is still there.
Do I think some jobs should require background investigations? Absolutely. Should a programming position with a financial institution be one of those jobs? Most likely. A person in that position has the potential of swindling millions of dollars from people and potentially ruining lives.
This is one of the rare occasions I'm okay with fingerprinting for a job. Color me surprised.
1) It's called selective jamming. 2) Why would he need to be on the phone for that 5 minutes? 3) I'm guessing the President had a mobile before 9/11. 4) The President is simply told "Mr. President get down" (if he's given that much information) until the Secret Service believe he is safe from harm. Then they will inform him of the situation. Their job is to protect his life, not keep him informed.
Seriously, why would anyone wanting to harm US interests ever want to assassinate Bush? He's the biggest threat to US interests in a long time. He's doing everything perfectly to turn the world against us and bring the "enemy" more cannon fodder for their armies. He's a terrorist's wet dream. He's easily manipulated, power-happy, and has something to prove, to himself, to his father, to the world. What more can you ask as a hate-monger?
Except for that whole metal detector thing, and the general security around the President 24 hours a day. This isn't 1981 anymore, and it's much harder to get close enough to the President while carrying a gun than it used to be. Simple, yes. Effective, not likely. Points for thinking like a real assassin, though. This whole "terrorist" thing is just a big pile of shit.
I sometimes wonder if our country should survive another 9/11. Something's gone terribly wrong in the last 10-12 years in this country and it's not getting better. Maybe we need to become something entirely different to uphold what we originally considered sacred. Obviously we're not doing that now.
If you had enough pressure to keep it solid at 30C you'd probably crush your hand if you could put it in the chamber. If you released the pressure suddenly, odds are the reaction would be violent, sending boiling water and steam everywhere quickly until the system equalized.
Think of what happens if you create a pinhole in the barrier between two drastically different pressure systems and you'll have something similar to what would happen.
"Yet, at the same time, LEDs simply don't need to be the super, ultra-bright kind unless they're indicating a warning or serious problem, or their environment requires it (i.e. sunlight)."
I won't disagree, but will say it's really hard for a router designer to have any idea whether the router is going to be placed next to a window in full sunlight or in a network closet somewhere. Especially for consumer grade routers like those listed in the article.
Personally, I think they should all simply have a removable cover you can flip open and check if there are blinking lights. Simple solution for everyone, those who like the lights constantly can remove the cover, and those who don't like them can close it. Of course, then you have one more part to produce that can break and cause customer annoyance, so it's yet another tradeoff.
2 * 10 isn't 2 powers of 10. (That's 2 mulitples of 10) 2 powers of 10 =10*10 or 10^2. So it is the same order of magnitude, it's just not very accurate.
Exactly! Once you learn how to block sentences at a time, the issue of being "confused" by the lines above and below go away. Reading 120-150 pages an hour at 80% retention/comprehension is plenty fast enough. Being able to do that requires a lot of practice though, and most people can still only read 30-40 pages an hour of anything but fluff with comprehension and retention.
It's interesting that just a few years ago, people were saying we should all be reading paragraphs at a time because that's what our eyes see. Now they're saying the opposite and the fact that our eyes see more is what's keeping us back. There must be some happy middle ground somewhere.
This will only help readers until it becomes the "normal" way of reading. Once that happens, if it ever does (which I highly doubt) then people will go back to losing the same amount of information they lose now.
I suspect that's the difference in their test results. The test subjects are paying more attention to what they are reading simply because it's not in a familiar form and they are then forced to read more carefully. You can't skim something that doesn't hold a familiar form simply because you brain hasn't figured out which words will be important. Once it does, you'll be able to skip those words once again. Highlighting key words does some of that for you, but it's imcomplete, at least with their sample texts, and therefore you still have to work harder for the same results. (An initial reading for comprehension)
Consider reading poetry, and why people have to focus when they read it out loud. It forces pauses and intonations in unusual places (often) but also it doesn't flow the way you expect it to because you're used to reading full sentences. If you read poetry all the time, that discomfort goes away and it becomes very simple to read, so you "skim" again, where you wouldn't have as a new reader.
"I thought I was the only one in the world who did that."
For future reference, no one is the "only one in the world" who does anything. There is nothing unique, and there is no "normal"... but this completely offtopic.
"This finding has important implications for reading because, when language is written down, many of these same syntactic cues are similarly stripped away"
Those syntactic cues are usually replaced with punctuation. That's how punctuation came to be in the first place. When someone asks you a question, you understand because pitch goes up. When you read a question, you understand because there's a question mark. (Well, there should be a question mark, if the question is written properly.) How is this an "important implication for reading"?
Looking at the example texts, it basically looks like they did some speed reading and then reformatted the text and highlighted the verb. While that's pretty cool, it's nothing spectacularly new or different. Children's books have been doing this for as long as I can remember to teach new vocabulary words or grammar structures.
My other question is how will this help with other languages? Yeah, it seems to parse english effectively, but what about languages that use other alphabets or writing and grammar styles?
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention some of the products aren't even from 2006, much less 2007. OS X Tiger was released in April 2005. How is that relavent to 2007? Or is it preemptively supposed to say Panther and they just screwed up?
Even as an Apple user, I call bullshit on this "100 best list"
Not to be thick, but since when has security been a selling point for OO? I've heard a lot of things about OO over the years, but not once have I heard, or spoken of security as a selling point. Have I (and all my friends) been out of the loop somehow?
Most people don't consider security when they're thinking of writing a document. They think about how they format their documents, how people will read their documents, and how much that will cost them. Other than that, I think most people don't give a damn. Security just isn't a factor for a word processor in most users minds.
Good grief! Why is it slashdotters only think in the digital realm? Just because more is being produced today doesn't mean everything is digital. Copyright doesn't apply just to digital IP. It applies to written word, digital media, photographs and any other number of things. Yes, 50 years is even too long, but 2 to 5 years is a bit ridiculous. There are plenty of books that I have every intention of reading, but haven't gotten around to yet. Should the author be penalized because I happen to have a long list of books to read and his/her work isn't at the top of my 5 year long list? I don't think so.
The problem is copyright shouldn't be the same for every medium. Maybe a couple of years on certain digital creations, and somewhere between 10 and 12 years for written word, or say 20 years for photography. I don't know the right way to fix it, I just know it's broken. There are plenty of people smarter than I who can fix it.
Legal contracts may not be binding on minors, but if they have actually formed a corporation, contracts with that corporation are binding.
"If it is a lie so be it but I will say to a child you cannot be a Doctor today, or an astronaut or a President or a CEO (if I add etc etc etc here I trust you will understand my meaning). The wonderful lesson to teach a child is that he can be any one of them and will have 40 or 50 years to do it. In the mean time prepare for life as an adult rather than pretending to be one."
So why should a kid not have the opportunity to learn whether or not they want to be a CEO before they are an adult? Why dictate they can only have one career? Why limit them in any way? You say you want to give them balance and opportunities, but then you limit that? It doesn't make sense.
Different kids have different interests and abilities. Why not encourage them to pursue those abilities to whatever end they want, rather than artificially limiting them? I understand your concern, and generally feel similarly with regard to pushing kids in one direction or another. I think here, though, you've made an assumption about the kid's state of mind and what he wants to do. I think you'd find most kids who weren't enjoying it, wouldn't have garnered any attention from the media because they would not be capable of hiding their disinterest.
This kid can be a CEO today and by the time he's 18 he will have a good understanding of business, economics, marketing, product development, project management, team development, and many many other skills that will be useful whatever he does. Why deny that just because he's "pretending to be an adult". It's one stage of development for all children, he's just taking it in a different direction.
They obviously found the images somehow, or there would be no lawsuit in the first place. It's not hard to do some selective word searching that describes the image content and find specific pictures, especially of "artistic" type images.
Yes, that's the dedication, but this book doesn't have that. I don't remember the exact wording of the thing, but it's not the same as that I'm sure. I found that dedication during my google hunts yesterday. Either way, I'm pretty sure it is just a moderately old edition of the KJV Bible. I don't think it's really over 400 years old, but I know it's over 100 just from the dates written by my family. I think the odds are it's 150 years old at the most, but I havent' verified that yet.
Yeah I googled it too, trying to find more information. My sister actually ahs the book now (she's a book collector of sorts) and is trying to do some more research. It's a family bible with hand written dates of 1880 but I couldn't find a printing date on it anywhere.
While I can't dispute the specific Koran texts, quoting Deutoronomy as the teachings of Christ is simply incorrect. Deuteronomy is from the Old testament, and therefore not "Christian" per se. Christ specifically contradicted many of the old testament teachings.
Do I think the religious teachings are all good? Not a chance. But don't discount your own argument by providing false or incorrect references.
So as a serious question: I have a "Prince James Edition" of the Bible that I think dates to the late 19th century...what the hell is that?
They don't always leave larger exit holes, but it's a general rule, especially for larger caliber weapons. Velocity, slug material, slug design, trajectory, impacts inside the body etc, all have a factor. Obviously if a bullet hits a bone and carries the bone matter with it, it's going to do more damage than just passing through soft tissue. However, if a bullet passes through soft tissue on entry and only hits bone on exit (say being shot at the base of the skull with exit through forehead) it's a possibility that the exit wound isn't particularly large, especially with high velocity rounds. Lots of factors will affect the final result.
Fingerprints are used to identify criminals. If your fingerprints are on file, you have the possibility (albeit small) of being falsely identified. Your prints also have the possibility of being "faked" and you being therefore framed. Yes this possibility is even smaller than a false positive identification, but it is still there.
Do I think some jobs should require background investigations? Absolutely. Should a programming position with a financial institution be one of those jobs? Most likely. A person in that position has the potential of swindling millions of dollars from people and potentially ruining lives.
This is one of the rare occasions I'm okay with fingerprinting for a job. Color me surprised.
It's Blue Thunder! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086671/plotsummary
Obviously you're a car thief or some other sort of two-bit criminal.
1) It's called selective jamming.
2) Why would he need to be on the phone for that 5 minutes?
3) I'm guessing the President had a mobile before 9/11.
4) The President is simply told "Mr. President get down" (if he's given that much information) until the Secret Service believe he is safe from harm. Then they will inform him of the situation. Their job is to protect his life, not keep him informed.
Seriously, why would anyone wanting to harm US interests ever want to assassinate Bush? He's the biggest threat to US interests in a long time. He's doing everything perfectly to turn the world against us and bring the "enemy" more cannon fodder for their armies. He's a terrorist's wet dream. He's easily manipulated, power-happy, and has something to prove, to himself, to his father, to the world. What more can you ask as a hate-monger?
Except for that whole metal detector thing, and the general security around the President 24 hours a day. This isn't 1981 anymore, and it's much harder to get close enough to the President while carrying a gun than it used to be. Simple, yes. Effective, not likely. Points for thinking like a real assassin, though. This whole "terrorist" thing is just a big pile of shit.
I sometimes wonder if our country should survive another 9/11. Something's gone terribly wrong in the last 10-12 years in this country and it's not getting better. Maybe we need to become something entirely different to uphold what we originally considered sacred. Obviously we're not doing that now.
If you had enough pressure to keep it solid at 30C you'd probably crush your hand if you could put it in the chamber. If you released the pressure suddenly, odds are the reaction would be violent, sending boiling water and steam everywhere quickly until the system equalized.
Think of what happens if you create a pinhole in the barrier between two drastically different pressure systems and you'll have something similar to what would happen.
"Yet, at the same time, LEDs simply don't need to be the super, ultra-bright kind unless they're indicating a warning or serious problem, or their environment requires it (i.e. sunlight)."
I won't disagree, but will say it's really hard for a router designer to have any idea whether the router is going to be placed next to a window in full sunlight or in a network closet somewhere. Especially for consumer grade routers like those listed in the article.
Personally, I think they should all simply have a removable cover you can flip open and check if there are blinking lights. Simple solution for everyone, those who like the lights constantly can remove the cover, and those who don't like them can close it. Of course, then you have one more part to produce that can break and cause customer annoyance, so it's yet another tradeoff.
2 * 10 isn't 2 powers of 10. (That's 2 mulitples of 10) 2 powers of 10 =10*10 or 10^2. So it is the same order of magnitude, it's just not very accurate.
Exactly! Once you learn how to block sentences at a time, the issue of being "confused" by the lines above and below go away. Reading 120-150 pages an hour at 80% retention/comprehension is plenty fast enough. Being able to do that requires a lot of practice though, and most people can still only read 30-40 pages an hour of anything but fluff with comprehension and retention.
It's interesting that just a few years ago, people were saying we should all be reading paragraphs at a time because that's what our eyes see. Now they're saying the opposite and the fact that our eyes see more is what's keeping us back. There must be some happy middle ground somewhere.
This will only help readers until it becomes the "normal" way of reading. Once that happens, if it ever does (which I highly doubt) then people will go back to losing the same amount of information they lose now.
I suspect that's the difference in their test results. The test subjects are paying more attention to what they are reading simply because it's not in a familiar form and they are then forced to read more carefully. You can't skim something that doesn't hold a familiar form simply because you brain hasn't figured out which words will be important. Once it does, you'll be able to skip those words once again. Highlighting key words does some of that for you, but it's imcomplete, at least with their sample texts, and therefore you still have to work harder for the same results. (An initial reading for comprehension)
Consider reading poetry, and why people have to focus when they read it out loud. It forces pauses and intonations in unusual places (often) but also it doesn't flow the way you expect it to because you're used to reading full sentences. If you read poetry all the time, that discomfort goes away and it becomes very simple to read, so you "skim" again, where you wouldn't have as a new reader.
"I thought I was the only one in the world who did that."
For future reference, no one is the "only one in the world" who does anything. There is nothing unique, and there is no "normal"... but this completely offtopic.
"This finding has important implications for reading because, when language is written down, many of these same syntactic cues are similarly stripped away"
Those syntactic cues are usually replaced with punctuation. That's how punctuation came to be in the first place. When someone asks you a question, you understand because pitch goes up. When you read a question, you understand because there's a question mark. (Well, there should be a question mark, if the question is written properly.) How is this an "important implication for reading"?
Looking at the example texts, it basically looks like they did some speed reading and then reformatted the text and highlighted the verb. While that's pretty cool, it's nothing spectacularly new or different. Children's books have been doing this for as long as I can remember to teach new vocabulary words or grammar structures.
My other question is how will this help with other languages? Yeah, it seems to parse english effectively, but what about languages that use other alphabets or writing and grammar styles?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
-Mandy Patinkin
There, fixed it for you.