I type very fast in a number of languages that I speak, when I type I think in the language that I type.
You "think" in the spoken language in which you type, not in the written language. Otherwise, you wouldn't mix up words that have extremely different meanings, like here and hear. That sort of mistake is very common with non-native speakers of any language who learn the language primarily through speaking/hearing it. People who learn another language primarily (or extensively) through writing/reading don't tend to make those mistakes often.
You're speaking in your head and then translating the sounds into the language's script (or matching the sound with a written word that sounds like the word you want). How native speakers make those mistakes so often is a little more troubling.
I'm glad I'm not the only person who feels this way. I'm also a little disturbed at how defensive and obstinate people are with regard to their poor writing skills. It's a pretty easy situation to correct (grade-schoolers do it every day) and writing poorly shouldn't be some badge of honor. It comes off the same as people who proudly proclaim that they're bad at math. If you're going to do something, at least make an attempt at doing it well.
Whoa. This is a great example of the word salad that the GP was talking about.
I'm not quite sure what your "math if you want so" example relates to, but I think that mixing up homophones like they're/their/there has to do with people "talking" in their head and then actively translating those sounds into written words instead of having the correctly spelled word directly associated with the thought that it represents. People like that probably don't even notice misspellings because they "talk" out the sentence as they read it and don't really have any mental association between written words and the thoughts that they represent.
Your style of writing, combined with all of the quoted sentences that you use to communicate, makes me think that you are one of those people. I'm not sure how writing works for most people, but I don't have to stop and talk to myself in order to select the correct word. That kind of sucks if that's what you have to do. Maybe that's why ten minute videos of people talking on YouTube, in place of one page of text, are so popular.
... because each additional exposure to sloppiness only makes the sloppiness more entrenched.
That's a thought that has scared me away from Slashdot, and indeed most of the internet discussion boards, for long periods of time. I try to keep myself from getting accustomed to horrible grammar and spelling by deliberately not correcting the mistakes in my head when I read them. This has the somewhat gratifying side effect of making points made in posts with profuse spelling mistakes sound even less valid. (Maybe I am an asshole.)
I used to go back to reading books in the meantime, but I've noticed that editing in actual printed books has gone way downhill lately and most ebooks are OCR'd and sold without ever being checked for mistakes. That actually pisses me off to the point that I can't bring myself to hand over money for ebooks anymore.
Maybe a single-digit percentage would do as you suggest; the rest would fritter away their lives doing nothing of value to anyone, getting fat, weak, sickly, dumb in the head, and/or getting into one kind of trouble or another.
But how is that any different from the current situation?
The only difference that I see is that many of those "single-digit percentage" are kept from doing things that could actually benefit humanity because their time is wasted filling out TPS reports AND "the rest" are stifling overall productivity by being forced into jobs that are either busywork or that they are entirely unfit for.
Letting them stay home and watch TV would mean that I could finish my work with less interference and then go learn another language or play music or whatever else. It's win-win.
The first thing I think when I hear "free service" is to wonder how I am really paying for this service. This company will have complete logs of all of your incoming calls, which could be worth something to somebody. They claim otherwise, though.
From their site:
How Does Nomorobo Stay In Business? The service is free for consumers but business and public safety organizations pay to license the data. For consumers, robocalls are annoying. But, for businesses it costs them real money. And, for EMS systems (like 911), it could be a matter of life and death.
These are the people that don't mind paying for the service and using it directly in their telephone equipment.
That's a perfectly reasonable expectation, and you certainly won't find it here. I'm honestly shocked when I get relevant or reasonable responses to my posts, and it seems like the harder I try to make my intentions crystal clear, the more likely I am to get an inane response.
I think the whole point of "discussions" on the internet is to break down our will to engage in meaningful debate. Half of my posts are AC now, just so that I don't feel compelled to check the disappointing responses.
It's pretty disingenuous to assert that the prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment is the only part of the "Bill of Rights" that grants a power to the federal government in the guise of asserting a right, when all of the powers delegated in the original constitution were done so in the articles. Especially since the ninth amendment makes it clear that the point of listing rights in the Constitution isn't to put limits on them:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So where in the Articles is the power to decide what training is sufficient for a person to own a firearm?
Especially because today's guns can do substantially more damage than the guns did when the amendment was written.
Fixed artillery and ships equipped with cannon, capable of sustained bombardment on a city, were privately owned in that time. The weapons (long rifles) owned by private parties in the Revolutionary War were also significantly better than those used by the English soldiers. The concept of private ownership of powerful weaponry was not exactly a new concept back then.
Did you read section (b) from the quoted passage? Because your bolded section (d) is only modifying that section "within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection."
Your posted example completely agrees with the parent's description of the NY law. The example you gave doesn't apply at all when the pedestrian is jaywalking.
Because jaywalking laws aren't enforced, so we totally need another law./s
It's like all of the "State Law: Keep right except to pass" signs on the highway here that work soooo well. Nobody keeps right except to pass because it's not enforced, so a new law was passed that mandated these signs being placed on the highway (instead of mandating that the actual law be enforced). Obviously, nobody's driving habits changed.
The other responses in this thread list a few, including the classic: pedestrian steps out from between two parked vehicles into a stream of busy traffic moving at speed. An accident of some sort is extremely likely in that case and that's the sort of situation that inspired jaywalking laws to begin with. You don't need contrived gun-to-head scenarios unless you're being deliberately obtuse. A reasonably attentive driver doesn't have superhuman reflexes and the ability to change the laws of physics when maneuvering or braking a car. (Legally, a reasonably attentive driver is even allowed to be looking the opposite way or checking their mirrors or gauges for the second that it would take such a jaywalker to enter the stream of traffic.)
The law says that drivers yield to pedestrians, even jaywalkers. doesn't matter if they're distracted or not. In a pedestrian accident, the driver is at fault.
Which law are you referring to, because I can't think of a single state that doesn't allow the particulars of the situation to be considered when determining the fault of a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian? Nobody (except the police, apparently) have license to mow down pedestrians with impunity, but if a reasonably attentive drive could not avoid a collision with a pedestrian then they can be found not at fault for such a collision. I'm sure you can think of several examples that would fit that description, and since they very often involve distracted walking, I assume that they are what this bill is trying to reduce.
Oh for fuck's sake.. think like a politician for a moment; THAT was what the intent was: What arguments would an opposing politician raise against legislation like this?
Would that have been so hard to clearly state from the beginning? Honestly, the responses you got were exactly the sort of arguments that a politician would use. They don't counter overly-emotional hysterics with reason and facts. They counter them with oppositely oriented overly-emotional hysterics.
Stop jumping to building strawmen out of everyone, will you?
I wasn't part of the pile-on, but do you still not see how you caused it? You gave the responders all the straw they needed to build those strawmen.
Lol, internet tough guy. Maybe you should follow the advice in your own sig.
Seriously, though, the wording (and bolding) of your last sentence was extremely indicative of a loaded question. If people's response wasn't what you intended, then you made a mistake in the way you drafted the question. The responses to your post are all pretty much the same, which should be a clue that the "misunderstanding" is coming from your end. Go back and reread your post and then, at least, follow up with what you meant to say instead of raging like a fool.
On the plus side of that particular argument, future use of an "anonymous tip" in court would practically scream "parallel construction". Not necessarily a fair trade, but still worth thinking about...
In my experience, people who have at least a dozen bumper stickers of any kind tend to be loud self-righteous assholes who tend to bring a lot flak on themselves through their own actions (super aggressive or passive-agressive driving, illegal or inconsiderate parking habits, etc). I think it's something about being strongly opinionated and needing validation through persecution, or something..
I'm not saying that your sister necessarily fits into that category, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Why collect 100K from Apple when you can sell the same exploit multiple times and make a lot more than that?
Because you run a legitimate business and don't want to get involved with shady mobsters, for one.
If I discovered a flaw that Apple would pay me anything for, I would totally "sell" it to them instead of reaching out to my local crime syndicates. Maybe I've watched too many movies, but dealing with organized crime never seems to end well, especially as the dollar amount goes up and/or they get wind that you're re-selling the same product to their competition.
I just bought a new Macbook Pro six months ago and specifically opted for the "Mid-2012" model (because you can still upgrade/replace the battery, SSD, RAM), so they shouldn't be quite as smug as they are. It's not five years old, yet, but it's actually better than their newest models in many ways.
Honestly, 90% of the Slashdot comments would disappear if people generally followed the advice in your sig: "Before you reply, check to make sure you read what I actually wrote rather than what you assume an idiot would write."
Beyond the first couple of comments in any thread, the "discussions" are generally just misinterpretations of misinterpretations of misinterpretations... I love the defense of poor reading comprehension that follows your last post.
That's a little myopic. E-readers could serve many purposes and there is definitely a market for more than just replacing paperbacks.
I'd love to be able to read all of my scientific papers on an e-ink display instead of printing (and carrying) reams of paper or having the weight, low battery life, and transmissive screens inherent in tablets and laptops. Many students would love to replace all of the textbooks that they lug around with a lightweight, battery-sipping e-reader. These uses would greatly benefit from a letter/A4 sized screen as they have fixed layouts.
-- Every iPhone has the same public keys burned on it, because that's how public keys work.
Do they really only use one key for signing all of the updates? It seems like a much better idea to use a different key for each model so that they have to the option of retiring keys after a while.
Much of the military will be on the citizen's side, but law enforcement has been operating in full-on "us vs them" mode against the citizenry for decades now. They're completely comfortable kicking in their fellow Americans' doors and shooting them in the street.
Indirect rates are already opaque and only vaguely justified, so I really doubt that any change in actual costs would be reflected in the indirect rates. Savings in the library's budget will be offset by an increase in administrative overhead somewhere else. Indirects are more like a tax than anything else, and will only go down if the ability of the university's faculty to acquire grants is harmed too much by their current rates.
What will happen in your situation is that indirects will remain the same and researchers will now have to pay for publications out of direct funds. It will still be a better situation, though, especially for researchers at smaller institutions.
Slashdot Mirror
I type very fast in a number of languages that I speak, when I type I think in the language that I type.
You "think" in the spoken language in which you type, not in the written language. Otherwise, you wouldn't mix up words that have extremely different meanings, like here and hear. That sort of mistake is very common with non-native speakers of any language who learn the language primarily through speaking/hearing it. People who learn another language primarily (or extensively) through writing/reading don't tend to make those mistakes often.
You're speaking in your head and then translating the sounds into the language's script (or matching the sound with a written word that sounds like the word you want). How native speakers make those mistakes so often is a little more troubling.
That was very well said! Thank you.
I'm glad I'm not the only person who feels this way. I'm also a little disturbed at how defensive and obstinate people are with regard to their poor writing skills. It's a pretty easy situation to correct (grade-schoolers do it every day) and writing poorly shouldn't be some badge of honor. It comes off the same as people who proudly proclaim that they're bad at math. If you're going to do something, at least make an attempt at doing it well.
Whoa. This is a great example of the word salad that the GP was talking about.
I'm not quite sure what your "math if you want so" example relates to, but I think that mixing up homophones like they're/their/there has to do with people "talking" in their head and then actively translating those sounds into written words instead of having the correctly spelled word directly associated with the thought that it represents. People like that probably don't even notice misspellings because they "talk" out the sentence as they read it and don't really have any mental association between written words and the thoughts that they represent.
Your style of writing, combined with all of the quoted sentences that you use to communicate, makes me think that you are one of those people. I'm not sure how writing works for most people, but I don't have to stop and talk to myself in order to select the correct word. That kind of sucks if that's what you have to do. Maybe that's why ten minute videos of people talking on YouTube, in place of one page of text, are so popular.
... because each additional exposure to sloppiness only makes the sloppiness more entrenched.
That's a thought that has scared me away from Slashdot, and indeed most of the internet discussion boards, for long periods of time. I try to keep myself from getting accustomed to horrible grammar and spelling by deliberately not correcting the mistakes in my head when I read them. This has the somewhat gratifying side effect of making points made in posts with profuse spelling mistakes sound even less valid. (Maybe I am an asshole.)
I used to go back to reading books in the meantime, but I've noticed that editing in actual printed books has gone way downhill lately and most ebooks are OCR'd and sold without ever being checked for mistakes. That actually pisses me off to the point that I can't bring myself to hand over money for ebooks anymore.
Maybe a single-digit percentage would do as you suggest; the rest would fritter away their lives doing nothing of value to anyone, getting fat, weak, sickly, dumb in the head, and/or getting into one kind of trouble or another.
But how is that any different from the current situation?
The only difference that I see is that many of those "single-digit percentage" are kept from doing things that could actually benefit humanity because their time is wasted filling out TPS reports AND "the rest" are stifling overall productivity by being forced into jobs that are either busywork or that they are entirely unfit for.
Letting them stay home and watch TV would mean that I could finish my work with less interference and then go learn another language or play music or whatever else. It's win-win.
The first thing I think when I hear "free service" is to wonder how I am really paying for this service. This company will have complete logs of all of your incoming calls, which could be worth something to somebody. They claim otherwise, though.
From their site:
That's a perfectly reasonable expectation, and you certainly won't find it here. I'm honestly shocked when I get relevant or reasonable responses to my posts, and it seems like the harder I try to make my intentions crystal clear, the more likely I am to get an inane response.
I think the whole point of "discussions" on the internet is to break down our will to engage in meaningful debate. Half of my posts are AC now, just so that I don't feel compelled to check the disappointing responses.
It's pretty disingenuous to assert that the prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment is the only part of the "Bill of Rights" that grants a power to the federal government in the guise of asserting a right, when all of the powers delegated in the original constitution were done so in the articles. Especially since the ninth amendment makes it clear that the point of listing rights in the Constitution isn't to put limits on them:
So where in the Articles is the power to decide what training is sufficient for a person to own a firearm?
Especially because today's guns can do substantially more damage than the guns did when the amendment was written.
Fixed artillery and ships equipped with cannon, capable of sustained bombardment on a city, were privately owned in that time. The weapons (long rifles) owned by private parties in the Revolutionary War were also significantly better than those used by the English soldiers. The concept of private ownership of powerful weaponry was not exactly a new concept back then.
Did you read section (b) from the quoted passage? Because your bolded section (d) is only modifying that section "within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection."
Your posted example completely agrees with the parent's description of the NY law. The example you gave doesn't apply at all when the pedestrian is jaywalking.
Because jaywalking laws aren't enforced, so we totally need another law. /s
It's like all of the "State Law: Keep right except to pass" signs on the highway here that work soooo well. Nobody keeps right except to pass because it's not enforced, so a new law was passed that mandated these signs being placed on the highway (instead of mandating that the actual law be enforced). Obviously, nobody's driving habits changed.
The other responses in this thread list a few, including the classic: pedestrian steps out from between two parked vehicles into a stream of busy traffic moving at speed. An accident of some sort is extremely likely in that case and that's the sort of situation that inspired jaywalking laws to begin with. You don't need contrived gun-to-head scenarios unless you're being deliberately obtuse. A reasonably attentive driver doesn't have superhuman reflexes and the ability to change the laws of physics when maneuvering or braking a car. (Legally, a reasonably attentive driver is even allowed to be looking the opposite way or checking their mirrors or gauges for the second that it would take such a jaywalker to enter the stream of traffic.)
The law says that drivers yield to pedestrians, even jaywalkers. doesn't matter if they're distracted or not. In a pedestrian accident, the driver is at fault.
Which law are you referring to, because I can't think of a single state that doesn't allow the particulars of the situation to be considered when determining the fault of a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian? Nobody (except the police, apparently) have license to mow down pedestrians with impunity, but if a reasonably attentive drive could not avoid a collision with a pedestrian then they can be found not at fault for such a collision. I'm sure you can think of several examples that would fit that description, and since they very often involve distracted walking, I assume that they are what this bill is trying to reduce.
Oh for fuck's sake.. think like a politician for a moment; THAT was what the intent was: What arguments would an opposing politician raise against legislation like this?
Would that have been so hard to clearly state from the beginning? Honestly, the responses you got were exactly the sort of arguments that a politician would use. They don't counter overly-emotional hysterics with reason and facts. They counter them with oppositely oriented overly-emotional hysterics.
Stop jumping to building strawmen out of everyone, will you?
I wasn't part of the pile-on, but do you still not see how you caused it? You gave the responders all the straw they needed to build those strawmen.
Lol, internet tough guy. Maybe you should follow the advice in your own sig.
Seriously, though, the wording (and bolding) of your last sentence was extremely indicative of a loaded question. If people's response wasn't what you intended, then you made a mistake in the way you drafted the question. The responses to your post are all pretty much the same, which should be a clue that the "misunderstanding" is coming from your end. Go back and reread your post and then, at least, follow up with what you meant to say instead of raging like a fool.
On the plus side of that particular argument, future use of an "anonymous tip" in court would practically scream "parallel construction". Not necessarily a fair trade, but still worth thinking about...
In my experience, people who have at least a dozen bumper stickers of any kind tend to be loud self-righteous assholes who tend to bring a lot flak on themselves through their own actions (super aggressive or passive-agressive driving, illegal or inconsiderate parking habits, etc). I think it's something about being strongly opinionated and needing validation through persecution, or something..
I'm not saying that your sister necessarily fits into that category, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Why collect 100K from Apple when you can sell the same exploit multiple times and make a lot more than that?
Because you run a legitimate business and don't want to get involved with shady mobsters, for one.
If I discovered a flaw that Apple would pay me anything for, I would totally "sell" it to them instead of reaching out to my local crime syndicates. Maybe I've watched too many movies, but dealing with organized crime never seems to end well, especially as the dollar amount goes up and/or they get wind that you're re-selling the same product to their competition.
I just bought a new Macbook Pro six months ago and specifically opted for the "Mid-2012" model (because you can still upgrade/replace the battery, SSD, RAM), so they shouldn't be quite as smug as they are. It's not five years old, yet, but it's actually better than their newest models in many ways.
Honestly, 90% of the Slashdot comments would disappear if people generally followed the advice in your sig: "Before you reply, check to make sure you read what I actually wrote rather than what you assume an idiot would write."
Beyond the first couple of comments in any thread, the "discussions" are generally just misinterpretations of misinterpretations of misinterpretations... I love the defense of poor reading comprehension that follows your last post.
The range of longbows was an order of magnitude higher, with competent archers being able to shoot 200 to 300 meters.
E-readers are replacement for paperback books.
That's a little myopic. E-readers could serve many purposes and there is definitely a market for more than just replacing paperbacks.
I'd love to be able to read all of my scientific papers on an e-ink display instead of printing (and carrying) reams of paper or having the weight, low battery life, and transmissive screens inherent in tablets and laptops. Many students would love to replace all of the textbooks that they lug around with a lightweight, battery-sipping e-reader. These uses would greatly benefit from a letter/A4 sized screen as they have fixed layouts.
-- Every iPhone has the same public keys burned on it, because that's how public keys work.
Do they really only use one key for signing all of the updates? It seems like a much better idea to use a different key for each model so that they have to the option of retiring keys after a while.
Much of the military will be on the citizen's side, but law enforcement has been operating in full-on "us vs them" mode against the citizenry for decades now. They're completely comfortable kicking in their fellow Americans' doors and shooting them in the street.
This is like talking to an ELIZA bot; there's very little comprehension at all.
...the indirect cost rate would decrease...
Indirect rates are already opaque and only vaguely justified, so I really doubt that any change in actual costs would be reflected in the indirect rates. Savings in the library's budget will be offset by an increase in administrative overhead somewhere else. Indirects are more like a tax than anything else, and will only go down if the ability of the university's faculty to acquire grants is harmed too much by their current rates.
What will happen in your situation is that indirects will remain the same and researchers will now have to pay for publications out of direct funds. It will still be a better situation, though, especially for researchers at smaller institutions.