These percentages are almost certainly independent:
Q1: Do you think that you can drive a car better than a computer?
(75% said yes)
Q2: Do you think that computers are capable of the same quality of decision-making as human drivers?
(64% said no).
This is perfectly sensible. Some number of people (in the range of 11% - 36%) answered yes to both Q1 and to Q2. Presumably these people thought that some factor other than decision-making made them a better driver than the computers.
FYI, "it's" can also mean "it has". "It is", on the other hand, cannot mean "it has". We are forced to conclude, then, that "it's" (2 meanings) is not equal to "it is" (1 meaning).
UCLA's Teaching Assistant union has done excellent work for the TAs. The union has negotiated significant improvements in benefits (prior to organizing there was no dental or optical coverage, for example) and in protections (TAs can now seek mediation if they are being asked to work longer than 20/hours a week, etc.). The union has also negotiated pay increases, but the pay increases have been largely (but not entirely) swallowed by increased union dues. Still, getting additional benefits without a loss in pay is a good deal.
I know exactly what you mean... I work in a small shop with seven developers: four men, three women. I'm the senior developer, so I review everyone's code. We're all so different from each other, I don't think there's a single thing where I could say "the men all X" or "the women all Y", or even "only the women X" or "only the men Y". I can't even think of anything where I'm tempted to say "the men tend to X" or "the women tend to Y". Although --- believe you me --- I could certainly pick out each individual and say what kind of tendencies they have. I know seven is very small sample, but it just gives me the impression that someone's gender is a very poor predictor of their coding style.
The company I work for (which does NLP-assisted customer relations management) doesn't have a single developer with a CS degree. My degree is Linguistics and Cognitive Science. There are a few other linguists here, several people with degrees in Philosophy, a crowd with math degrees, and a few (OK, one) dude with a degree in Literature. Programming is relatively easy; knowing stuff about the world and having the ability to think analytically are much harder attributes to find in potential employees. We'll hire someone with no programming experience if they've developed the kind of mind we want.
That's pretty interesting. Expression matching is what my company does, so seeing how other implementations work is always interesting. I had no idea that.NET had their own Regexp world. We started with a system that was all Perl regexps, and then Jakarta, and then java.util.regex but found that our large set of expressions got unmaintainable in all of these systems. Now we have our own, in house expression matching engine. This has worked out very well for several years, but now it, too, is experiencing major growing pains. Why can't human language all be in Polish notation? The Malagasy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malagasy_language/ come pretty close, though.
Except that even most modern "regexp" libraries only allow a limited amount (usually nine, in my experience) of back references. To check that closing tags matched opening tags you'd need arbitrarily many back references. Is there any regexp library that does this?
I was an exchange student in Germany when I found out that not all assholes were American. It made me sad... I'd always hoped that the rest of the world was a little better. Then I formulated my "Universal Sick F*ck Hypothesis," that any person, in any locality, has an equal chance of being a Sick F*ck, independent of Race, Creed, or just about any other factor.
Ah... an exact definition of word... that's something we linguists also do not have. We could try a prosodic definition of word, or a morphological definition. The wikipedia article on morphology has a minor discussion of he differences here. We could also try for syntactic definitions of word, too. I haven't seen any semanticists offer up a definition of word, but I may just not have been paying enough attention... with the way that semanticists are getting into prosody lately (mostly to try to understand the semantic content of intonation contours) it seems like it's just a matter of time.
As to what's an acronym or not, The earlier discussion indicates that there are at least two active meanings for it in modern speech, but there are still some cases that seem to fall into the cracks here. What about non-written languages or syllable-based writing systems. Is a collection of initial syllables an acronym (in the strictest sense), an initialism, or some third kind of thing? I guess we have a few in English, too. 'Satcom', and my personal favorite 'modconamlit' ("modern/contemporary American literature") spring to mind as I write this. It seems to me that these are about halfway in between. *shrug*
"It could be argued that..." Of course it could, anything can be argued. It wouldn't be a very good or very convincing argument however. I would make a different argument: As words exist separately from written language---even illiterate speakers of English know English words and can distinguish among sequences of sounds those which are likely or possible English words from those which are highly unlikely or impossible---any formulation of what can or cannot be word based on a written form is doomed to failure. The word "icy" involves the sequence of sounds [aj], [s], and [i], and in the English orthography that we've inherited from our recent cultural ancestors we choose to represent it as the sequence of letters I, C, and Y, but how we spell it isn't what makes it a word or not. What makes it a word, among other things (perhaps none of them necessary or sufficient on their own) is that it can be used in conversations with almost any English speaker with the justified expectation that they will know what you mean.
By that logic, "icy" is not a word, because it sounds the same as the letters IC. On the other hand, if "icy" is a word, then "eyebeehem" could just as well be a word.
I prefer to focus on the root beliefs instead of the disagreement.
If most anti-abortionists are in fact "pro life," then your claim is that their root belief is somehow in the sanctity of life. Why, then, do so many support the death penalty and George Bush? If there's been any American leader more anti life (anti the life of the poor, anti the life of soldiers, anti the life of criminals), direct my attention to that person and I'll send some bile their way.
Why is there no party that truly represents a pro life agenda? I want no death penalty. I want quality of life --- for everyone. I could handle very limited access to abortion. I am pro life. Where is the party that represents me?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you just made Johann's point for him. Your death will lead to a more pleasurable existence for those future generations.
shoots you?
These percentages are almost certainly independent:
(75% said yes)
(64% said no).
This is perfectly sensible. Some number of people (in the range of 11% - 36%) answered yes to both Q1 and to Q2. Presumably these people thought that some factor other than decision-making made them a better driver than the computers.
FYI, "it's" can also mean "it has". "It is", on the other hand, cannot mean "it has". We are forced to conclude, then, that "it's" (2 meanings) is not equal to "it is" (1 meaning).
UCLA's Teaching Assistant union has done excellent work for the TAs. The union has negotiated significant improvements in benefits (prior to organizing there was no dental or optical coverage, for example) and in protections (TAs can now seek mediation if they are being asked to work longer than 20/hours a week, etc.). The union has also negotiated pay increases, but the pay increases have been largely (but not entirely) swallowed by increased union dues. Still, getting additional benefits without a loss in pay is a good deal.
That's a remarkable map.
Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich?
I know exactly what you mean... I work in a small shop with seven developers: four men, three women. I'm the senior developer, so I review everyone's code. We're all so different from each other, I don't think there's a single thing where I could say "the men all X" or "the women all Y", or even "only the women X" or "only the men Y". I can't even think of anything where I'm tempted to say "the men tend to X" or "the women tend to Y". Although --- believe you me --- I could certainly pick out each individual and say what kind of tendencies they have. I know seven is very small sample, but it just gives me the impression that someone's gender is a very poor predictor of their coding style.
The company I work for (which does NLP-assisted customer relations management) doesn't have a single developer with a CS degree. My degree is Linguistics and Cognitive Science. There are a few other linguists here, several people with degrees in Philosophy, a crowd with math degrees, and a few (OK, one) dude with a degree in Literature. Programming is relatively easy; knowing stuff about the world and having the ability to think analytically are much harder attributes to find in potential employees. We'll hire someone with no programming experience if they've developed the kind of mind we want.
That's pretty interesting. Expression matching is what my company does, so seeing how other implementations work is always interesting. I had no idea that .NET had their own Regexp world. We started with a system that was all Perl regexps, and then Jakarta, and then java.util.regex but found that our large set of expressions got unmaintainable in all of these systems. Now we have our own, in house expression matching engine. This has worked out very well for several years, but now it, too, is experiencing major growing pains. Why can't human language all be in Polish notation? The Malagasy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malagasy_language/ come pretty close, though.
Except that even most modern "regexp" libraries only allow a limited amount (usually nine, in my experience) of back references. To check that closing tags matched opening tags you'd need arbitrarily many back references. Is there any regexp library that does this?
I was an exchange student in Germany when I found out that not all assholes were American. It made me sad... I'd always hoped that the rest of the world was a little better. Then I formulated my "Universal Sick F*ck Hypothesis," that any person, in any locality, has an equal chance of being a Sick F*ck, independent of Race, Creed, or just about any other factor.
I am the only one who read "Google Age" like "Space Age"? I think it's about time we've moved on.
The average score of throwing 10 six-sided dice is 35; if you're averaging 30, then perhaps you are using five-sided dice?
As to what's an acronym or not, The earlier discussion indicates that there are at least two active meanings for it in modern speech, but there are still some cases that seem to fall into the cracks here. What about non-written languages or syllable-based writing systems. Is a collection of initial syllables an acronym (in the strictest sense), an initialism, or some third kind of thing? I guess we have a few in English, too. 'Satcom', and my personal favorite 'modconamlit' ("modern/contemporary American literature") spring to mind as I write this. It seems to me that these are about halfway in between. *shrug*
"It could be argued that..." Of course it could, anything can be argued. It wouldn't be a very good or very convincing argument however. I would make a different argument: As words exist separately from written language---even illiterate speakers of English know English words and can distinguish among sequences of sounds those which are likely or possible English words from those which are highly unlikely or impossible---any formulation of what can or cannot be word based on a written form is doomed to failure. The word "icy" involves the sequence of sounds [aj], [s], and [i], and in the English orthography that we've inherited from our recent cultural ancestors we choose to represent it as the sequence of letters I, C, and Y, but how we spell it isn't what makes it a word or not. What makes it a word, among other things (perhaps none of them necessary or sufficient on their own) is that it can be used in conversations with almost any English speaker with the justified expectation that they will know what you mean.
By that logic, "icy" is not a word, because it sounds the same as the letters IC. On the other hand, if "icy" is a word, then "eyebeehem" could just as well be a word.
Yeah... "die" has (at least) four meanings in German: {'feminine', 'plural'} X {'nominative', 'accusative'}.
Der Entwickler - one. Die Entwickler - many. Same goes for just about any noun formed by a verb plus -er.
Check http://www.canoo.net/services/Controller?dispatch= inflection&input=Entwickler&features=(Cat+N)(Gende r+M)&country=D&lookup=caseInSensitive... it's a great resource for checking out German inflection patterns.
Holy crap! I knew I'd see them eventually! I finally saw them! Whee!
If most anti-abortionists are in fact "pro life," then your claim is that their root belief is somehow in the sanctity of life. Why, then, do so many support the death penalty and George Bush? If there's been any American leader more anti life (anti the life of the poor, anti the life of soldiers, anti the life of criminals), direct my attention to that person and I'll send some bile their way.
Why is there no party that truly represents a pro life agenda? I want no death penalty. I want quality of life --- for everyone. I could handle very limited access to abortion. I am pro life. Where is the party that represents me?
Who modded this troll? It's hilarious! Go find something better to do with your mod points.
Foo.txt {ASCII} == Foo.txt {UTF-8}