Sorry, great analysis and all, but how do you make Jim wise and intelligent? He believes in witches. He thinks touching a snake skin brings you bad luck. He lets a white boy lead him south down the Mississippi. He goes along with Tom's ridiculous escape plan, even leaving his prison to help carry the useless grindstone back, because he trusts white folks to know what's best for him. If there weren't so many white idiots in the book you'd think he was a racial stereotype.
They had the words "negro" and "slave". (And, yes, often the word "nigger" does mean "slave" as it's used in the book. I have the Gutenberg Project file here, 5 mentions of "slave" and 5 of "slavery" against 203 of "nigger" in a book about slavery.) Google says that "nigger" was always a minority term in print. Twain made a deliberate decision to use it, and not to use other offensive words (no "damn", no "bitch", and a lot of highly suspicious "blame"-ing). The language was chosen to shock. It was shocking then as it is now. That doesn't mean it should be censored, but let's call a spade a spade.
Because, Samuel Clemmons was a unapologetic satirist. The only people using the derogatory words were the idiots of the book, the so-called "fine and upstanding citizens of society" were fools, criminals and murderers. The fact that the words are more hideous now makes the fools of the book look even more foolish.
Not true. Everybody uses the word. Huck, as narrator, uses the word. Jim uses the word. You can say every character is an idiot, but don't suggest that the word was used selectively.
Imagine that "docking station" already having an Intel chip in it, so you get the functionality without the phone plugged in! It's not like low-end processors are hugely expensive, after all. All the phone needs to bring to the party is its memory.
I've seen presentations run from a PDF before. It would be a pity to lose these possibilities.
I don't see anything in the linked page to say you'll lose that possibility.
All you need is a projector-sized page and internal hyperlinks.
(You don't need hyperlinks, but they can be used for navigation.)
You will lose embedded animations.
That's actually not the best way, because running it twice leaves you back where you started. And sometimes you do need to re-run it, like if you plug in a USB keyboard or Gnome decides that it knows better what mapping you want. If you're on Gnome, it's best to work with it, and set this in Keyboard Preferences|Layouts|Layout Options. A.Xmodmap file in your home directory might also be respected.
There we go, a serious answer from a frivolous thread.
The truth is, the PRC is completely clueless about PR (public relations) and will continue to be roundly slaughtered in the court of public opinion because of this.
They're clueless about international PR. They manage the Chinese public's opinion very well. What we see as bad PR is partly that the message for China doesn't work outside China and partly that the government doesn't realize this and doesn't understand liberal culture.
If your date involved trying to play a movie on your computer.... you lost her before you even logged into the computer. (unless she's a computer geek, but then, she wouldn't have been frightened by the man page either)
My experience is otherwise. The only details I'll reveal are: Ubuntu, mplayer, and no glitches.
As Feynman said "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." This was with regards to the Colombia disaster. Here was a case of faking up the science to support the conclusion that was wanted, which was that things were safe. Well, all that was for naught, as the reality was it was NOT safe and blew the fuck up.
There's a true genius if ever I saw one! Not only did he come up with a juicy quote like that, but it was about an accident that happened after his own death.
I don't see any need for exceptions because I can't find anything in RFC 1187 that we'd need to make an exception to.
I don't see any problem with MX records either. MX records exist precisely to solve this problem. The DNS tells you which server to send email to. That is, it delegates to a sub domain, if that's what you want. Nothing you do on your web server will break email.
Now, you may have services other than web and email, yes. And you may have some problem with routing by protocol. But, given that it isn't 1992 any more, and this web thing doesn't look like a passing fad, it makes sense to use the shortest domain name for the most used protocol. That does mean that the vast majority of "www" prefixes are completely redundant. But, hey, aren't people funny things?
If we're going to be strict about this – and I am whether you like it or not – The Economist does sometimes publish bylines. It does so for a review of a book by a former or current Economist journalist.
Oh, Lordy, no replies to this so I'll be the one to go through it. I did, as it happens, read through the file in question. It shows that merging data from different academic projects with different source data and different analysis software, written by scientists, can be a real headache. Quite enlightening if you want to know how messy real science can get but nothing to do with a conspiracy to falsify global warming data.
What we're talking about is "data tampering". Remember that, children.
- "But what are all those monthly files?
I don't know. What are they?
DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless " (Page 17)
So he has output files, and doesn't know where they came from. Somebody didn't document their code properly. Hold the front page!
- "It's botch after botch after botch." (18)
What is?
- "The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour's edits to the program, when the network died no explanation from anyone, I hope it's not a return to last year's troubles This surely is the worst project I've ever attempted. Eeeek." (31)
Maybe the network's shit. Irrelevant.
- "Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite." (37)
- " this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!" (45)
Maybe the code's shit. Irrelevant.
- "Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!" (47)
The database is a mess. Irrelevant.
- "As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless." (57)
Right, the count of weather stations is meaningless. So we don't know how many individual
weather stations are contributing to the data. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the data,
let alone that it's been tampered with.
- "COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!" (71)
There you go, there's an error in the database. Do you think it was deliberately added by somebody not smart enough to check when the station opened? And this one mis-labeled data point from a weather station in Australia is responsible for the apparent trend of global warming? Really?
- "What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah -- there is no 'supposed,' I can make it up. So I have : - )" (98)
What's he making up? Temperature readings? The name of a weather station? Whether two different names refer to the same weather station or not? It's surely not as sensational as you imply.
- "You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance " (98)
Yes, some stations are listed in the database without a code. The software uses the code as a unique ID.
So each station needs to have one. If you don't know the right one, you add a false one. These are labels.
We have falsification of labels, not data.
- "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad " (98-9)
Yes, the database seems to be in a mess. Some weather stations are not labeled properly, and there may be duplicates. But the data are not falsified.
In 1999 when I first tried *desktop* Linux (having used it as a server before), it was a piece of crap. A complete piece of crap. It shipped with NS4, which was a piece of crap. The font system was crap. The tools were crap (in the sense that very few of them had GUIs). The installer was crap. The hardware detection was crap. The video support was crap. Networking with Windows machines was impossible (Windows 2000 and NT4). The repository system was starting to take shape, but installing new software was a crapshoot at best (at least I learned how to install from source tarballs). Did you want sound? No problem, just download and compile ALSA!
Networking with Windows 2000 machines was certainly a tough proposition in 1999!
Citizendium looked like a great idea until they decided to dump the Wikipedia content and start from scratch.
So now, according to their front pages, Citizendium has 8,700 articles and English Wikipedia has 2.6 million.
If you want to look something up, chances are it won't be in Citizendium.
So you go to Wikipedia instead.
And we all know everybody else goes to Wikipedia as well.
If you have a contribution to make, why bother with Citizendium?
Chances are nobody'll read it.
Academics like their names on things but they also like those things to be read.
If you contribute to Wikipedia, the worst thing that can happen is that it gets reverted,
and nobody reads that either.
When a new project forks Wikipedia while fixing its organizational problems,
then it might attract the best academic contributors.
It has to fulfil the following criteria:
Copy all (relevant) content from Wikipedia
Merge changes from Wikipedia
Contribute changes back to Wikipedia
Then, smart people can contribute in the hope that the whole project won't get dumped
in favor of Wikipedia's established content.
The new project can benefit from enhancements to Wikipedia.
And contributors to the new project can hope that even if it does die,
their changes will have as much chance of surviving in Wikipedia as if they'd made them directly.
All of this won't be easy to get right, but they're similar problems to distributed development,
and computer scientists are the best placed to solve them.
For now, Wikipedia may be inefficient in all kinds of ways, but it's also an extremely successful project.
It has a lot of good content, a lot of contributors, a lot of readers, and a lot of momentum.
A rival can't ignore all that.
Re:but this goes for any stream of information
on
The Geometry of Music
·
· Score: 1
That's certainly a criticism of string theory, because it uses extra dimensions to try and explain what happens in the usual four dimensions. But Tymoczko uses exactly the number of dimensions you'd expect in order to model voice leading. He happened to end up with a geometry that's known from string theory, and has some interesting properties.
I don't know exactly what you want to do or why you expect it to be done in one line, but
import turtle turtle.tracer(1) turtle.forward(10)
gets you pretty close in Python. Easier than anything I remember in Basic, back when you had to mess around with SCREEN commands. And, yes, if you want it in one line
That's three posts now claiming the "shoulders of giants" remark was a dig at Hooke. The context doesn't really bear it out. Newton sent the letter to diffuse a dispute over attribution, really a simple apology, with this remark as a "no hard feelings" conclusion.
They did have a serious row shortly before the publication of Principia Mathematica when Hooke provoked another argument in a more obnoxious way, and Newton responded by deleting all the (originally generous) citations to Hooke. From this point, we can assume bad faith on both sides. However, the idea that Newton was slipping ad hominem remarks into his earlier letters is a bit fanciful.
The population of the United Kingdom is around 60 million. 2778 divided by 60 million is indeed a litle over 0.000046.
I take it you studied maths at some stage. Do you remember anything about percentages being "out of 100"? 2778 is around 0.0046% of 60 million, more than a little over 0.000046%.
Or perhaps you were counting the population of the whole planet? At least we can rest safe in the knowledge that hordes of Indian and Chinese web surfers are not trying to download kiddie porn over BT's network.
Slashdot Mirror
It is, indeed, possible to use the menu bar for other things. See View|Toolbars.
Sorry, great analysis and all, but how do you make Jim wise and intelligent? He believes in witches. He thinks touching a snake skin brings you bad luck. He lets a white boy lead him south down the Mississippi. He goes along with Tom's ridiculous escape plan, even leaving his prison to help carry the useless grindstone back, because he trusts white folks to know what's best for him. If there weren't so many white idiots in the book you'd think he was a racial stereotype.
They had the words "negro" and "slave". (And, yes, often the word "nigger" does mean "slave" as it's used in the book. I have the Gutenberg Project file here, 5 mentions of "slave" and 5 of "slavery" against 203 of "nigger" in a book about slavery.) Google says that "nigger" was always a minority term in print. Twain made a deliberate decision to use it, and not to use other offensive words (no "damn", no "bitch", and a lot of highly suspicious "blame"-ing). The language was chosen to shock. It was shocking then as it is now. That doesn't mean it should be censored, but let's call a spade a spade.
Because, Samuel Clemmons was a unapologetic satirist. The only people using the derogatory words were the idiots of the book, the so-called "fine and upstanding citizens of society" were fools, criminals and murderers. The fact that the words are more hideous now makes the fools of the book look even more foolish.
Not true. Everybody uses the word. Huck, as narrator, uses the word. Jim uses the word. You can say every character is an idiot, but don't suggest that the word was used selectively.
Imagine that "docking station" already having an Intel chip in it, so you get the functionality without the phone plugged in! It's not like low-end processors are hugely expensive, after all. All the phone needs to bring to the party is its memory.
I've seen presentations run from a PDF before. It would be a pity to lose these possibilities.
I don't see anything in the linked page to say you'll lose that possibility. All you need is a projector-sized page and internal hyperlinks. (You don't need hyperlinks, but they can be used for navigation.) You will lose embedded animations.
And to remap your keyboard, put this in your .vimrc:
imap <Tab> <Esc>
inoremap <S-Tab> <Tab>
Then you can use to tab key to get out of insert mode. And, if you need to type a tab, use shift-tab.
Or you could learn to use your accessibility settings.
That's actually not the best way, because running it twice leaves you back where you started. And sometimes you do need to re-run it, like if you plug in a USB keyboard or Gnome decides that it knows better what mapping you want. If you're on Gnome, it's best to work with it, and set this in Keyboard Preferences|Layouts|Layout Options. A .Xmodmap file in your home directory might also be respected.
There we go, a serious answer from a frivolous thread.
The truth is, the PRC is completely clueless about PR (public relations) and will continue to be roundly slaughtered in the court of public opinion because of this.
They're clueless about international PR. They manage the Chinese public's opinion very well. What we see as bad PR is partly that the message for China doesn't work outside China and partly that the government doesn't realize this and doesn't understand liberal culture.
If your date involved trying to play a movie on your computer.... you lost her before you even logged into the computer. (unless she's a computer geek, but then, she wouldn't have been frightened by the man page either)
My experience is otherwise. The only details I'll reveal are: Ubuntu, mplayer, and no glitches.
Right, it isn't real computer science, giving us the no true Scotsman fallacy.
There's a true genius if ever I saw one! Not only did he come up with a juicy quote like that, but it was about an accident that happened after his own death.
I don't see any need for exceptions because I can't find anything in RFC 1187 that we'd need to make an exception to.
I don't see any problem with MX records either. MX records exist precisely to solve this problem. The DNS tells you which server to send email to. That is, it delegates to a sub domain, if that's what you want. Nothing you do on your web server will break email.
Now, you may have services other than web and email, yes. And you may have some problem with routing by protocol. But, given that it isn't 1992 any more, and this web thing doesn't look like a passing fad, it makes sense to use the shortest domain name for the most used protocol. That does mean that the vast majority of "www" prefixes are completely redundant. But, hey, aren't people funny things?
If we're going to be strict about this – and I am whether you like it or not – The Economist does sometimes publish bylines. It does so for a review of a book by a former or current Economist journalist.
Oh, Lordy, no replies to this so I'll be the one to go through it. I did, as it happens, read through the file in question. It shows that merging data from different academic projects with different source data and different analysis software, written by scientists, can be a real headache. Quite enlightening if you want to know how messy real science can get but nothing to do with a conspiracy to falsify global warming data.
What we're talking about is "data tampering". Remember that, children.
- "But what are all those monthly files?
I don't know. What are they?
DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless " (Page 17)
So he has output files, and doesn't know where they came from. Somebody didn't document their code properly. Hold the front page!
- "It's botch after botch after botch." (18)
What is?
- "The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour's edits to the program, when the network died no explanation from anyone, I hope it's not a return to last year's troubles This surely is the worst project I've ever attempted. Eeeek." (31)
Maybe the network's shit. Irrelevant.
- "Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite." (37) - " this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!" (45)
Maybe the code's shit. Irrelevant.
- "Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!" (47)
The database is a mess. Irrelevant.
- "As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless." (57)
Right, the count of weather stations is meaningless. So we don't know how many individual weather stations are contributing to the data. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the data, let alone that it's been tampered with.
- "COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!" (71)
There you go, there's an error in the database. Do you think it was deliberately added by somebody not smart enough to check when the station opened? And this one mis-labeled data point from a weather station in Australia is responsible for the apparent trend of global warming? Really?
- "What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah -- there is no 'supposed,' I can make it up. So I have : - )" (98)
What's he making up? Temperature readings? The name of a weather station? Whether two different names refer to the same weather station or not? It's surely not as sensational as you imply.
- "You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance " (98)
Yes, some stations are listed in the database without a code. The software uses the code as a unique ID. So each station needs to have one. If you don't know the right one, you add a false one. These are labels. We have falsification of labels, not data.
- "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad " (98-9)
Yes, the database seems to be in a mess. Some weather stations are not labeled properly, and there may be duplicates. But the data are not falsified.
So give robots an inescapable urge to reproduce themselves.
What could possibly go wrong?
sux otheruser
pidgin
Bonus points for getting GConf to work with it.
In 1999 when I first tried *desktop* Linux (having used it as a server before), it was a piece of crap. A complete piece of crap. It shipped with NS4, which was a piece of crap. The font system was crap. The tools were crap (in the sense that very few of them had GUIs). The installer was crap. The hardware detection was crap. The video support was crap. Networking with Windows machines was impossible (Windows 2000 and NT4). The repository system was starting to take shape, but installing new software was a crapshoot at best (at least I learned how to install from source tarballs). Did you want sound? No problem, just download and compile ALSA!
Networking with Windows 2000 machines was certainly a tough proposition in 1999!
Citizendium looked like a great idea until they decided to dump the Wikipedia content and start from scratch. So now, according to their front pages, Citizendium has 8,700 articles and English Wikipedia has 2.6 million. If you want to look something up, chances are it won't be in Citizendium. So you go to Wikipedia instead. And we all know everybody else goes to Wikipedia as well.
If you have a contribution to make, why bother with Citizendium? Chances are nobody'll read it. Academics like their names on things but they also like those things to be read. If you contribute to Wikipedia, the worst thing that can happen is that it gets reverted, and nobody reads that either.
When a new project forks Wikipedia while fixing its organizational problems, then it might attract the best academic contributors. It has to fulfil the following criteria:
Then, smart people can contribute in the hope that the whole project won't get dumped in favor of Wikipedia's established content. The new project can benefit from enhancements to Wikipedia. And contributors to the new project can hope that even if it does die, their changes will have as much chance of surviving in Wikipedia as if they'd made them directly. All of this won't be easy to get right, but they're similar problems to distributed development, and computer scientists are the best placed to solve them.
For now, Wikipedia may be inefficient in all kinds of ways, but it's also an extremely successful project. It has a lot of good content, a lot of contributors, a lot of readers, and a lot of momentum. A rival can't ignore all that.
That's certainly a criticism of string theory, because it uses extra dimensions to try and explain what happens in the usual four dimensions. But Tymoczko uses exactly the number of dimensions you'd expect in order to model voice leading. He happened to end up with a geometry that's known from string theory, and has some interesting properties.
I don't know exactly what you want to do or why you expect it to be done in one line, but
import turtle
turtle.tracer(1)
turtle.forward(10)
gets you pretty close in Python. Easier than anything I remember in Basic, back when you had to mess around with SCREEN commands. And, yes, if you want it in one line
import turtle;turtle.tracer(1);turtle.forward(10)
This is a common problem. I think it happens when the remote site never responds to a request. Call
socket.setdefaulttimeout(secs)before using urllib2 and all should be well.
That's three posts now claiming the "shoulders of giants" remark was a dig at Hooke. The context doesn't really bear it out. Newton sent the letter to diffuse a dispute over attribution, really a simple apology, with this remark as a "no hard feelings" conclusion.
They did have a serious row shortly before the publication of Principia Mathematica when Hooke provoked another argument in a more obnoxious way, and Newton responded by deleting all the (originally generous) citations to Hooke. From this point, we can assume bad faith on both sides. However, the idea that Newton was slipping ad hominem remarks into his earlier letters is a bit fanciful.
The population of the United Kingdom is around 60 million. 2778 divided by 60 million is indeed a litle over 0.000046.
I take it you studied maths at some stage. Do you remember anything about percentages being "out of 100"? 2778 is around 0.0046% of 60 million, more than a little over 0.000046%.
Or perhaps you were counting the population of the whole planet? At least we can rest safe in the knowledge that hordes of Indian and Chinese web surfers are not trying to download kiddie porn over BT's network.