Written Japanese seems to be a mix-and-match job involving two native phonetic alpabets (one all spiky and angular, and one with a lot of letters that look like pretzels), one imported phonetic alphabet, and lots of Chinese pictograms for good measure...
Learning Japanese must be a pain - many English speakers already complain that English is not consistent enough.
Yes, women definitely know a lot more color names than men. Other examples include fuchsia, teal, cornflower (which is blue -- not yellow!), taupe, chartreuse, and mauve. Heck, I'm lucky if I can distinguish beige from white or tan -- much less subtle shades in between like cream, ivory, or eggshell.
But can men see the difference between the different colors? If so, maybe they just have a larger color vocabulary, due to experience.
During the checkout phase, you get a code. You log on to your bank/credit card/whatever account, paste that code into a field to authorize the funds, and get an order confirmation from the place where you bought your stuff.
But isn't that essentially the same as a continually changing (1 time use) credit card number, but with more (or pretty much the same amount of) hassle?
If college professors were really any good at any of this stuff, wouldn't they have started companies and made their bones? Why aren't they building software?
Here's a thought - maybe they want to teach. Maybe they want to research further into their ideas without having to deal with the annoying details of running a company.
Some people are hell bent on removing the cords from everything but for some things like the mouse, it just adds complexity where none is needed nor wanted.
Even worse is cordless keyboards. I mean, what the heck? Do you carry your keyboard around while you type or something? And most cordless keyboards aren't even rechargeable.
The logitech mx500 is *the* best mouse I've ever used. It's the only one that doesn't make my hand sore after awhile. My only complaint is I'd rather have a bigger scroll wheel than the hard to reach cruise control scroll buttons.
The problem is with the definition of "true statistics". There are a few cases where relatively objective statistics are possible and common. But these are by far the minority, and are seldom the interesting issues.
Let me give an example. Say, how big a part of GDP a government allocates to healthcare. Assume that all statistics are perfectly collected, there are no errors whatsoever in how the data are collected . A "true statistic" no ?
http://www.globalis.no/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=1 42&year=2001 Look at Germany. 0.8% less that ALL but 5 other countries, all the others being countries in the category "Afghanistan", "Nigeria" and so on.
The real reason ?
Let's compare to Norway. For a typical person in Norway, there's maybe 35% taxes. of those, the state gives out around 1/3rd, so 12% of your gross for healthcare.
In Germany, there's instead maybe a 20% tax plus a MANDATORY (by law) "healthcare insurance" that costs something like 14% of your gross.
End result, the statistics say that Germany pays only 0.8% of GDP for healthcare, only 1/8th that of Norway, while in REALITY the typical German pays around 15% (14% + 0.8%) of his gross for healthcare compared to 12% in Norway.
What difference does it make if the subtraction from your salary is labeled "taxes" or "health-insurance" when in both cases you are required by law to pay it, and in both cases the money goes to pay for the very same thing ?
I would argue, though, that this is an example of someone misinterpreting the statistic - there is still nothing wrong the statistic and (assuming the data is correct) the statistic is the straight truth.
Comparing percentage of GDP allocated to healthcare between governments, though, is actually quite pointless, as you pointed out - it doesn't really tell you much due to things like "mandatory healthcare insurance". That is why I believe statistics (the numbers, not the field of statistics) have very limited use, and really don't tell you more than the results of a particular calculation performed on a particular data set. However, this does not make the statistics any less true, and I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe that "statistics are the straight truth".
Re:Nice, but they've got it all wrong...
on
Linux Desktop Guide
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm, that's strange. Maybe it's a geographical thing.
Re:Nice, but they've got it all wrong...
on
Linux Desktop Guide
·
· Score: 1
while little Johnny's school uses Windows machines..
Actually, if you take a real look, little Johnny's school most likely doesn't use Windows. For stuff like the library, photo/arts and graphics labs, you can bet on them being dominated by macs. For stuff like science labs, computer labs, etc, you can bet on them being dominated by some combination of Linux on PCs or Sun Solaris UNIX terminals. The only real places Windows is used is in the home and in businesses (corporate environment). It seems the Windows monopoly hasn't found its way into schools (yet).
People wo think that statistics are the straight truth are idiots.
What is that supposed to mean? Why aren't (true) statistics the straight truth? Wouldn't it be idiotic to *not* believe a statistical statement based on laws of logic?
or just look at subsection like china and be like everyone has pirated software on thier computer so therefore everyone must be pirating worldwide.
What does that have anything to do with whether or not statistics are the straight truth? If someone used the (very true) statistic of number of people with pirated software out of the exact people in the sample to simply make a statement like "9 out of 10 people in the world pirate software", that statement is a LIE (unless it happens to be true). It is *not* an example of how statistics are not the straight truth. Unless you want to disprove specific theories in the field of statistics, I would suggest not calling people idiots.
With that said, people who think that lies are the straight, or misinterpret statistical statements, are idiots.
I wonder if that's one the worst things you can tell your kids - especially if that statement is true. Of course, telling your kids they're dumb is probably worse - especially if THAT is true.
The best way to improve your presentation is to cut out as much as possible. Make yourself the focus of the presentation, not the clip art or whatever fancy crap you've got on the screen.
That's because you're a technical instructor. The best lectures I've attended are ones where the instructor uses the chalkboard/whiteboard, and *shock* actually writes legible, well organized notes on the board that *shock* perfectly compliment his/her verbal speech.
On the other hand, most business presentations, frankly, don't have much content, and really there isn't much for the audience to think about. If they *aren't* distracted by flashing text and sliding graphics, they'll be distracted by thoughts of what's for lunch. Better to be distracted by what's on the presentation screen... Of course the real solution is to make business presentations more thought provoking and require more focussed attention to understand the concepts being presented in the business presentation. But, business does not work that way...
Not truely useful, but a piece of eyecandy that some marketeer or executive would want, earning the creators money.
Or it could look like the creators have no taste or budget for anything more professional.
Re:Do people honestly think these look good
on
Accelerated PowerPoint?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
No, I don't think anyone thinks the effects look good. I think the effects are there for the sole purpose of justifying the creation of the presentation in PowerPoint.
The very fact that Americans (at least more than none) *are* aware of the connections and similarites to history, makes a big difference in whether or not history will be repeated.
Hm, but piracy / illegal patching would have probably the same consequences/chance of getting caught in asia (i.e. almost none), while killing your friend would probably be very hard to hide, and would result in more serious consequences.
Plus, some friend you would be, choosing killing your friend instead of pirating software.
Slashdot Mirror
Take a look at where British Columbia, Canada gets its electricity: BC Hydro
Learning Japanese must be a pain - many English speakers already complain that English is not consistent enough.
But can men see the difference between the different colors? If so, maybe they just have a larger color vocabulary, due to experience.
But isn't that essentially the same as a continually changing (1 time use) credit card number, but with more (or pretty much the same amount of) hassle?
My guess is not close at all, which would be a good thing, because I really think books should be used as inspirations for movies, not as collars.
Here's a thought - maybe they want to teach. Maybe they want to research further into their ideas without having to deal with the annoying details of running a company.
Even worse is cordless keyboards. I mean, what the heck? Do you carry your keyboard around while you type or something? And most cordless keyboards aren't even rechargeable.
The logitech mx500 is *the* best mouse I've ever used. It's the only one that doesn't make my hand sore after awhile. My only complaint is I'd rather have a bigger scroll wheel than the hard to reach cruise control scroll buttons.
Are there any major features that are in StarOffice but not OpenOffice? I'm just wondering what they've added, and if it's worth the download.
Um, one word - Multitasking.
I would argue, though, that this is an example of someone misinterpreting the statistic - there is still nothing wrong the statistic and (assuming the data is correct) the statistic is the straight truth.
Comparing percentage of GDP allocated to healthcare between governments, though, is actually quite pointless, as you pointed out - it doesn't really tell you much due to things like "mandatory healthcare insurance". That is why I believe statistics (the numbers, not the field of statistics) have very limited use, and really don't tell you more than the results of a particular calculation performed on a particular data set. However, this does not make the statistics any less true, and I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe that "statistics are the straight truth".
Hmmm, that's strange. Maybe it's a geographical thing.
Actually, if you take a real look, little Johnny's school most likely doesn't use Windows. For stuff like the library, photo/arts and graphics labs, you can bet on them being dominated by macs. For stuff like science labs, computer labs, etc, you can bet on them being dominated by some combination of Linux on PCs or Sun Solaris UNIX terminals. The only real places Windows is used is in the home and in businesses (corporate environment). It seems the Windows monopoly hasn't found its way into schools (yet).
Not really - humans usually have a pretty good understanding of what "be ethical" means. They just don't have that one rule:
1) Be ethical.
What is that supposed to mean? Why aren't (true) statistics the straight truth? Wouldn't it be idiotic to *not* believe a statistical statement based on laws of logic?
or just look at subsection like china and be like everyone has pirated software on thier computer so therefore everyone must be pirating worldwide.
What does that have anything to do with whether or not statistics are the straight truth? If someone used the (very true) statistic of number of people with pirated software out of the exact people in the sample to simply make a statement like "9 out of 10 people in the world pirate software", that statement is a LIE (unless it happens to be true). It is *not* an example of how statistics are not the straight truth. Unless you want to disprove specific theories in the field of statistics, I would suggest not calling people idiots.
With that said, people who think that lies are the straight, or misinterpret statistical statements, are idiots.
I wonder if that's one the worst things you can tell your kids - especially if that statement is true. Of course, telling your kids they're dumb is probably worse - especially if THAT is true.
Beacause you can't make money - only take it from someone else. Printing money therefore takes money from everyone else.
And continued need and want of the resource by others. What if we don't need gold in the future?
That's because you're a technical instructor. The best lectures I've attended are ones where the instructor uses the chalkboard/whiteboard, and *shock* actually writes legible, well organized notes on the board that *shock* perfectly compliment his/her verbal speech.
On the other hand, most business presentations, frankly, don't have much content, and really there isn't much for the audience to think about. If they *aren't* distracted by flashing text and sliding graphics, they'll be distracted by thoughts of what's for lunch. Better to be distracted by what's on the presentation screen... Of course the real solution is to make business presentations more thought provoking and require more focussed attention to understand the concepts being presented in the business presentation. But, business does not work that way...
Or it could look like the creators have no taste or budget for anything more professional.
No, I don't think anyone thinks the effects look good. I think the effects are there for the sole purpose of justifying the creation of the presentation in PowerPoint.
Interesting name, perhaps a bit nostalgic?
The very fact that Americans (at least more than none) *are* aware of the connections and similarites to history, makes a big difference in whether or not history will be repeated.
Why kill the person? Can't you take their fingerprint and manufacture a "finger print skin"?
Plus, some friend you would be, choosing killing your friend instead of pirating software.