Actually, the parent referred to "the Government" and not "the US government". Like all Canadian universities, UofT is a public institution, so the Canadian government certainly does fund it.
You're thinking of Kevin "Captain Cyborg" Warwick, a University of Reading (UK) professor. Steve Mann is at UofT (Toronto, Canada). Mann actually does quite a bit of legitimate research in wearable computing (not implants!), but he certainly enjoys the media attention ("Ooh! A cyborg!"). Personally, I find the way he roams the halls of the Sanford Fleming building late at night dressed in all black rather creepy.
All I'm saying is that canadacow's grammar is far from atrocious. In fact, I didn't notice a single grammatical error. Perhaps I missed some; could you please point them out?
You make a good point, but I think your jab at canadacow's grammar is unwarranted. It may not be perfect (though I myself didn't notice any significant errors), but 'atrocious' it certainly isn't.
The 'autobiography' bit was a typo which I corrected as soon as the two-minute limit would allow. As for your pathetic attempts to insult me, I must say I'm not at all impressed. Anyway, while I suppose I could have phrased my post somewhat more carefully, the ridiculous claim I was responding to deserves to be mocked mercilessly. 'Unbiased', indeed.
Yes, I'm sure this autobiography of Stan Lee is far more important than such wortless books as Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics and Reinventing Comics. NOT.
Oh yes, Bush made a _huge_ tactical error calling for that Dixie Chicks boycott. In fact...hold on a minute...he never did such a thing! But hey, even though you're _totally wrong_, why let that get in the way of some good old America-bashing? This is Slashdot, after all. Who cares about facts and such anyhow? You're practically ready for that NYT gig, buddy.
P.S.
Witless trolls like you are one reason the radical left has such a credibility problem. There are plenty of reasons to criticise the US, but for chrissakes get your facts straight.
Lotsa Kungfu + Robots + Keanu Reeves + Innovative Camera Work = Deep philosophical treatise on the the nature of reality. Riiight. What's next, singularities in the space-time continuum as elucidated in James Cameron's iconoclast monograph, Terminator 2: Judgement Day?
I've got a pathetically tiny TV, but I still rent widescreen whenever possible. Why? Because it looks a million times better, that's why. I never understood how people can be bothered by two little black bars but not by the fact they're missing a third of the frame...Bizarre.
Exactly. We must tackle more pressing issues -- such as splitting the atom and putting a man on the moon -- first. Once that is accomplished, 200 years from now say, we can start talking about nanotechnology.
The idiom "couldn't care less", meaning "doesn't care at all" (the meaning in full is "cares so little that he couldn't possibly care less"), originated in Britain around 1940. "Could care less", which is used with the same meaning, developed in the U.S. around 1960. We get disputes about whether the latter was originally a mis-hearing of the former; whether it was originally ironic; or whether it arose from uses where the negative element was separated from "could" ("None of these writers could care less...") Meaning- saving elaborations have also been suggested; e.g., "As if I could care less!"; "I could care less, but I'd have to try"; "If I cared even one iota -- which I don't --, then I could care less."
An earlier transition in which "not" was dropped was the one that gave us "but" in the sense of "only". "I will not say but one word", where "but" meant "(anything) except", became "I will say but one word."
Well, I think Americans are very practical for one (which can be a good thing in moderation); they generally get things done, rather than wringing their hands and issuing innumerable communiques (heeded by absolutely no one) about the things that ought to be done. Furthermore, they have a strong sense of national identity and are by and large proud of their country (Susan Sontag & co notwithstanding); I wish I could say the same for Canadians. I realise that Americans often take this to ridiculous extremes and come across as incredibly arrogant and ignorant, but given a choice between that and the sort of self-loathing, self-pitying and self-doubting attitude espoused by the average Canadian (and I'm mostly thinking of Torontonians here, since that's what I'm familiar with) I'll take the former, thank you very much (we may live in America's shadow, but we have only ourselves to blame for that). Finally (and most importantly), I admire Americans' strong Libertarian tradition. Personally, I like my government small and out of my affairs, which is hardly the way things are in Canada or the EU these days. My point is that it's entirely possible to admire select aspects of American society (and culture) while intensely disliking others, such as the appalling ghettos, the hideous cookie-cutter suburbs, the garish malls (though the last two are hardly endemic to the US), the pro-lifers and other religious fanatics, the gay-bashers, the gun nuts, the drug warriors, the grotesquely obese...the list goes on and on. I've always been (and still am, sort of) a staunch Europhile and a vocal critic of the US (I am, after all, Canadian); the fact that I'm now perceived as being "too pro-US" by many says a lot more about the current tenor of US-criticism (more aptly described as frenzied US-bashing, perhaps) than anything else.
Confidential to knee-jerk US-bashers: please don't waste your time (and mine!) replying to this post unless you have something substantial to say (which, let's face it, you likely won't).
Yes, I CAN (I'm Canadian). However, if those are the freedoms at the top of your list (as opposed to, say, the freedom to not rot in jail for your beliefs, the way many people around the world still do), then we're just talking past each other. As far as I'm concerned, the very fact we are able to have this conversation on Slashdot makes my point for me.
What's that supposed to mean exactly? As I've pointed out, I am not a US citizen or even a US resident, and nor am I a huge fan of the US in general. However, just because I think the Americans have got some things wrong (e.g. the war on drugs, etc.) doesn't mean I can't admire certain aspects of their society.
Ah, ad hominem attacks, always a sign of superior intellect. As a matter of fact, I _have_ read 1984 multiple times, though not in the past few years. I didn't mean to imply it was actually _set_ in Communist Russia, but I certainly do believe it was meant to depict a totalitarian society at lest partly modelled on the USSR.
Silly old me, this whole time I was under the mistaken impression that 1984 was about Communist Russia...Thanks for clearing that up for me, buddy. It's pretty obvious though, when you think about it. On the one hand, you have a society where repressions/executions are routine, all imaginable freedoms are curtailed and the economy is centrally managed by a single party whose members are anything but elected. And on the other hand, we've got (wait for it)...The United States Of America. WTF???!?!?!?!? Do I like PATRIOT? No. Do I think George Bush is the most intelligent US president ever? Certainly not. Do I wholeheartedly endorse US foreign policy? Obviously I do not. HOWEVER, none of this makes the US "the feared society written about in the book 1984", as you put it. US citizens still enjoy more freedoms than anybody else on the planet IMO, even when you factor in the (admittedly questionable) restrictions introduced by the Bush administration. I'm not a US resident myself though, so I may be wrong about that.
Personally, I don't think Snow Crash is even remotely as good as Neuromancer. I must confess that I'm not exactly a huge sci-fi fan, let alone a cyberpunk devotee, but IMO Neuromancer is a well-written (or, at the very least, "interestingly-written") book with plenty of literary merit; I've re-read it a couple of times (something I rarely do) and it never fails to affect me emotionally. Snow Crash, on the other hand...Well, it's certainly entertaining enough, but hardly very deep or compelling (as far as I'm concerned, anyway). Maybe it's just me, but I didn't find any of the characters to be all that interesting (except maybe in a "he's a half-black half-Asian dreadlocked katana-wielding computer nerd, cool" kinda way), and the whole Sumerian angle seemed incredibly far-fetched to me. Also, while Molly is the sort of strong woman rarely found in contemporary sci-fi, Y.T. is...a glorified adolescent fantasy, basically. I find Stephenson's obsession with "funny" dialogue and "clever" plot twists frustrating; he is plainly capable of far more than that. As for the Cryptonomicon, I haven't read it myself but a friend of mine tried and gave up halfway through, largely for the reasons detailed above. Then again, another friend of mine loved it. There's no accounting for taste, I guess:)
On the off chance you're not trolling, you might want to know that Esperanto is an artifical language specifically designed to be as easy to learn/use as possible (clean syntax, phonetic spelling, etc).
Most of these programs seem to be using various "brute force" optimization techniques...Personally, I'd like to see a program that could compete with high-ranking GO players on equal footing.
IMHO, your mark should indicate how well you did _in relation to your classmates_, not some random highschool drop outs -- giving people B's just for showing up is precisely what grade inflation is about.
At my university (University of Toronto), class averages usually hover around C-C+; it's not that unusual for people to fail or barely pass a difficult course even if they did a fair amount of work. Whether that is a good thing or not is debatable, but it sure seems more reasonable than giving somebody an A just because they are 'smart enough to get into college'.
P.S.
I'm a CS and math major
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the parent referred to "the Government" and not "the US government".
Like all Canadian universities, UofT is a public institution, so the Canadian government certainly does fund it.
Um, this is most definitely not a list of US-built lemons. Fiat, Renault and Citroen all make an appearance, as does Mazda.
You're thinking of Kevin "Captain Cyborg" Warwick, a University of Reading (UK) professor. Steve Mann is at UofT (Toronto, Canada). Mann actually does quite a bit of legitimate research in wearable computing (not implants!), but he certainly enjoys the media attention ("Ooh! A cyborg!"). Personally, I find the way he roams the halls of the Sanford Fleming building late at night dressed in all black rather creepy.
All I'm saying is that canadacow's grammar is far from atrocious. In fact, I didn't notice a single grammatical error. Perhaps I missed some; could you please point them out?
You make a good point, but I think your jab at canadacow's grammar is unwarranted. It may not be perfect (though I myself didn't notice any significant errors), but 'atrocious' it certainly isn't.
The 'autobiography' bit was a typo which I corrected as soon as the two-minute limit would allow. As for your pathetic attempts to insult me, I must say I'm not at all impressed. Anyway, while I suppose I could have phrased my post somewhat more carefully, the ridiculous claim I was responding to deserves to be mocked mercilessly. 'Unbiased', indeed.
And you're basing your impression of me on what, exactly? A single Slashdot post? Right.
Er, that should be 'biography' and 'worthless'.
Yes, I'm sure this autobiography of Stan Lee is far more important than such wortless books as Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics and Reinventing Comics. NOT.
Actually, you'd be surprised how many people agree with the parent (and hence disagree with you). Though I'm not sure what that proves exactly,,,
Oh yes, Bush made a _huge_ tactical error calling for that Dixie Chicks boycott. In fact...hold on a minute...he never did such a thing! But hey, even though you're _totally wrong_, why let that get in the way of some good old America-bashing? This is Slashdot, after all. Who cares about facts and such anyhow? You're practically ready for that NYT gig, buddy.
P.S.
Witless trolls like you are one reason the radical left has such a credibility problem. There are plenty of reasons to criticise the US, but for chrissakes get your facts straight.
Lotsa Kungfu + Robots + Keanu Reeves + Innovative Camera Work = Deep philosophical treatise on the the nature of reality. Riiight. What's next, singularities in the space-time continuum as elucidated in James Cameron's iconoclast monograph, Terminator 2: Judgement Day?
I've got a pathetically tiny TV, but I still rent widescreen whenever possible. Why? Because it looks a million times better, that's why. I never understood how people can be bothered by two little black bars but not by the fact they're missing a third of the frame...Bizarre.
Exactly. We must tackle more pressing issues -- such as splitting the atom and putting a man on the moon -- first. Once that is accomplished, 200 years from now say, we can start talking about nanotechnology.
Why of course! After all, all bugs will presumably be heisenbugs
From the alt.usage.english FAQ:
The idiom "couldn't care less", meaning "doesn't care at all" (the meaning in full is "cares so little that he couldn't possibly care less"), originated in Britain around 1940. "Could care less", which is used with the same meaning, developed in the U.S. around 1960. We get disputes about whether the latter was originally a mis-hearing of the former; whether it was originally ironic; or whether it arose from uses where the negative element was separated from "could" ("None of these writers could care less...") Meaning- saving elaborations have also been suggested; e.g., "As if I could care less!"; "I could care less, but I'd have to try"; "If I cared even one iota -- which I don't --, then I could care less." An earlier transition in which "not" was dropped was the one that gave us "but" in the sense of "only". "I will not say but one word", where "but" meant "(anything) except", became "I will say but one word."
Confidential to knee-jerk US-bashers: please don't waste your time (and mine!) replying to this post unless you have something substantial to say (which, let's face it, you likely won't).
Yes, I CAN (I'm Canadian). However, if those are the freedoms at the top of your list (as opposed to, say, the freedom to not rot in jail for your beliefs, the way many people around the world still do), then we're just talking past each other. As far as I'm concerned, the very fact we are able to have this conversation on Slashdot makes my point for me.
What's that supposed to mean exactly? As I've pointed out, I am not a US citizen or even a US resident, and nor am I a huge fan of the US in general. However, just because I think the Americans have got some things wrong (e.g. the war on drugs, etc.) doesn't mean I can't admire certain aspects of their society.
Ah, ad hominem attacks, always a sign of superior intellect. As a matter of fact, I _have_ read 1984 multiple times, though not in the past few years. I didn't mean to imply it was actually _set_ in Communist Russia, but I certainly do believe it was meant to depict a totalitarian society at lest partly modelled on the USSR.
Silly old me, this whole time I was under the mistaken impression that 1984 was about Communist Russia...Thanks for clearing that up for me, buddy. It's pretty obvious though, when you think about it. On the one hand, you have a society where repressions/executions are routine, all imaginable freedoms are curtailed and the economy is centrally managed by a single party whose members are anything but elected. And on the other hand, we've got (wait for it)...The United States Of America. WTF???!?!?!?!? Do I like PATRIOT? No. Do I think George Bush is the most intelligent US president ever? Certainly not. Do I wholeheartedly endorse US foreign policy? Obviously I do not. HOWEVER, none of this makes the US "the feared society written about in the book 1984", as you put it. US citizens still enjoy more freedoms than anybody else on the planet IMO, even when you factor in the (admittedly questionable) restrictions introduced by the Bush administration. I'm not a US resident myself though, so I may be wrong about that.
Personally, I don't think Snow Crash is even remotely as good as Neuromancer. I must confess that I'm not exactly a huge sci-fi fan, let alone a cyberpunk devotee, but IMO Neuromancer is a well-written (or, at the very least, "interestingly-written") book with plenty of literary merit; I've re-read it a couple of times (something I rarely do) and it never fails to affect me emotionally. Snow Crash, on the other hand...Well, it's certainly entertaining enough, but hardly very deep or compelling (as far as I'm concerned, anyway). Maybe it's just me, but I didn't find any of the characters to be all that interesting (except maybe in a "he's a half-black half-Asian dreadlocked katana-wielding computer nerd, cool" kinda way), and the whole Sumerian angle seemed incredibly far-fetched to me. Also, while Molly is the sort of strong woman rarely found in contemporary sci-fi, Y.T. is...a glorified adolescent fantasy, basically. I find Stephenson's obsession with "funny" dialogue and "clever" plot twists frustrating; he is plainly capable of far more than that. As for the Cryptonomicon, I haven't read it myself but a friend of mine tried and gave up halfway through, largely for the reasons detailed above. Then again, another friend of mine loved it. There's no accounting for taste, I guess :)
It has nothing to do with Spanish.
Most of these programs seem to be using various "brute force" optimization techniques...Personally, I'd like to see a program that could compete with high-ranking GO players on equal footing.
IMHO, your mark should indicate how well you did _in relation to your classmates_, not some random highschool drop outs -- giving people B's just for showing up is precisely what grade inflation is about. At my university (University of Toronto), class averages usually hover around C-C+; it's not that unusual for people to fail or barely pass a difficult course even if they did a fair amount of work. Whether that is a good thing or not is debatable, but it sure seems more reasonable than giving somebody an A just because they are 'smart enough to get into college'. P.S. I'm a CS and math major