Actually, 'children' is even more fun cause it's a double plural. 'Child' was originally pluralized as 'cildru' (pronounced 'childru'), but when that noun form (rareish to begin with) died out in all its other examples, people were confused and improperly applied to it the '-en' of 'oxen,' one of the few other non '-s' plurals out there. Thus, 'children' gets that extra 'r', which doesn't have any other reason to exist. The older plural survives in Lancashire dialect, whose speakers use 'childer.'
> Expanding the salt grain to mountainous proportions therefore means that you will accept the survey results with total creduluity.
Not at all. The grain of salt is necessary to make something ordinarily unpalatable go down a little easier--that's what seasonings were for in the old days, to make slightly -off- foods taste a little better. Thus, the more disgusting and objectionable the food, the more salt we need. So a mountain of salt makes perfect sense.
With theis system you request music over the net, but it comes in over the cable tv cable, in analogue form. To quote the Boston Globe article on the supject:
The tough limits on digital music broadcasting didn't apply to analog broadcasting, the kind used by MIT's cable television systems. A cable broadcaster simply pays a blanket royalty fee to the major music licensing organizations, such as the American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers, or ASCAP.
Like most colleges, MIT already pays such a fee to those organizations. And a cable broadcaster doesn't pay the additional royalty to the record companies. So Winstein and Mendel built a network that takes orders over the Internet, but plays the music back over the cable system.
As someone has already pointed out, your memory misleads you... As I recall, in Ithaca's model the four inner planets are all within the Commons, so its Earth is less than a hundred feet from its Sun--nothing like one mile. Though I don't know where Pluto was in that model I walked from the Commons all the way out past Uranus, so unless something's grievously wrong with the scale I think Hawaii is out of the question.
Also, comparing the two: Ithaca's isn't three-dimensional, as the models are round plexiglass windows in stone gravestone-looking things (or rather little dots on those windows).
It's not even that the concepts behind the stories were so bad. It's that the screenplay adaptions of the stories were absolutely horrid...
Indeed. It almost seems like Lucas thought up the whole story a while ago, big-picture-wise, but now can't be bothered to actually write a script that could be filmed as a watchable movie. He would have done better to write a history book, Time-Life style, about the 'Rise and Fall of the Galactic Repuplic.' Or something.
>There are far, far more artistic sites then zombo.com
Indeed. Someone's alreday mentioned dextro.org; also check out turux.org which I think is by the same people.
But those are mostly Flash. There used to be a site at message.sk that had alot of actual html art, but there isn't now; but the person behind the message site also has a site at zden.localhost.sk that has some interesting stuff, such as this and this. And the of course there's always superbad.com... and I'm sure there are lots more besides; I hope I get to hear about some new ones from this story.
Well, the article goes so far as to say that 'Google's pages are filled with ads, but they are just text, which means the pages appear faster and, in the view of some users, look less cluttered.'
'Filled with ads' is, I believe, a bit much... It took a search for '"used car" travel "cruise ship"' to get the ads down to the bottom of the first page of results (and all the way on to the third page, in fact). Most of the time I don't see more than one or two ads for each search.
Antarctica is actually a desert, with little annual accumulation.
That's certainly true of the South Pole area itself, but from what I've read the edges of the continent get more than their fair share of snow. Reading the account of the Ross Sea party in Shackleton's book it certainly seemed like it snows there all the time!
But you're right, I find, that the problem at the South Pole station isn't new snow falling; it's the drifts of existing snow that buried the dome.
i think a highway costs somethign insane like $250,000 a foot for a 6 lane highway
Insightful my ass. '[T]he National Science Foundation in Virginia... is funding the $12-million project.' This ain't an American Thru-way, it's a one-lane ice road. A highway.
In the first line of the second paragraph you would have noticed that the highway is described as an 'ice road' over 'the Ross ice shelf, which permanently covers the ocean.' A bit later, we read:
Construction of the ice road involves clearing the route of snow, bulldozing rough ice and filling in crevasses. The route will cross the Leverett glacier in the Transantarctic Mountains....
The road will need to be cleared of snow and checked for crevasses and ice movement each spring, says Karl Erb of the National Science Foundation in Virginia, which is funding the $12-million project. "But crevices don't change much from year to year," he says. "We will just have to monitor them."
Also, it's my understanding that the biggest problem with a road in Antarctica wouldn't be melting, but the continual accumulation of snow. That's what buried the old dome and forced the creation of a new research station a couple years ago. It may be, though, that melting is an issue on the ice shelf, if not over the continent itself.
Boston, too, is particularly blessed with good college stations: MIT (88.1) Emerson College (88.9), BC (90.3) and Harvard (95.3) together ensure us continuous access to good non-commercial music--non-commercial both in the sense of not being interrupted by ads, and also not programmed by corporations. XM may be able to offer the first of those things, but can it manage the second?
Mitnick had wished to include a brief biographical sketch debunking the legendary persona created by New York Times tech hack John Markoff and detailing his ordeal at the hands of federal prosecutors. Unfortunately, the publisher rejected what were to be the juiciest parts of Chapter One, but we thought you
might like to see it anyway.
... the company is taking its cue from TV and offering scheduled content in AOL 8.0 -- programming offered at specific times on specific days. "Not only do I need to be online because that's where my friends are and because I've got to check my e-mail," says AOL's Kimball, "but also because it's Tuesday night, when there'll be new artists online, and Thursday is movie review night. We're creating a model where I've got to be online Saturday morning, I've got to be there on Sunday night. I really think we're creating this pattern through the week where you feel like there's value in all of the time online."
In other words, they're trying to turn at least their corner of the internet into a place for mindless sheep to go and absorb whatever 'programming' AOL wants to give em? What on earth do they mean by 'value in all the time online'?! One of the things I hate most about tv is that it demands you pay attention when the networks want you to; why would we want the internet to be like that? What AOL really means, seems to me, is that they're creating value for themselves by forcing people to play by their schedules. After all, when content is on the web isn't just as valuble--in fact, immeasurably more valuable--if it's there all the time?
Also, I love it that the article quotes the guy who writes 'AOL for Dummies.' Heh.
>The attitude that "it doesn't matter if the page is coded properly, as long as it looks right" is akin to thinking that it doesn't matter if you use "there" or "their" when you're writing -- as long as you get your point across.
Which is... true. It doesn't matter, in alot of circumstances. Consider a less obvious example: using the word 'irregardless,' say. Pedantic linguistic purists may complain that we ought use 'regardless,' but both are perfectly comprehensible. Obviously, we can't just say whatever we want and expect to be understood. But since meaning is all we (the non-pedantic) really care about, we have quite a range of expression we can use.
Seems to me the same is true for web design. The standards-mad folks may be better than the complainy sorts who write in to newspaper language columns in that they're at least trying to adapt their standards to fit reality, but while they work at that most people are actually creating content. And since they want people to see it, don't most people create content that does work reasonably well on most browsers? I use Mozilla and I haven't come across more than a handful of sites that are noticeably broken.
Admittedly, I don't know nothing about real web design, and what standards-compliance would do for future development blah blah. But really the web works now, even for those of us who never touch IE. And if we extend your language analogy to deliberate language reforms, not to mention things like Esperanto, we see that just muddling along usually produces a better result than strict pedantic enforced formalism.
Slashdot Mirror
32 bit extensions to a 16 bit OS, built for an 8 Bit CPU by a two bit company...
That can't stand one bit of competition.
And child, children.
Actually, 'children' is even more fun cause it's a double plural. 'Child' was originally pluralized as 'cildru' (pronounced 'childru'), but when that noun form (rareish to begin with) died out in all its other examples, people were confused and improperly applied to it the '-en' of 'oxen,' one of the few other non '-s' plurals out there. Thus, 'children' gets that extra 'r', which doesn't have any other reason to exist. The older plural survives in Lancashire dialect, whose speakers use 'childer.'
> Expanding the salt grain to mountainous proportions therefore means that you will accept the survey results with total creduluity.
Not at all. The grain of salt is necessary to make something ordinarily unpalatable go down a little easier--that's what seasonings were for in the old days, to make slightly -off- foods taste a little better. Thus, the more disgusting and objectionable the food, the more salt we need. So a mountain of salt makes perfect sense.
And, he really should be using instead of !
They promise to... just as soon as Slashdot posters startproofreading their posts!
if System 8 or System 9 was running the system, just playing an MP3 and doing something else would skip the music.
I must be doing something wrong: I never noticed anything like that...
...if you just verb it.
Yeah, you know UMaine Presque Isle is just filled with rich scholarship boys.
As someone has already pointed out, your memory misleads you... As I recall, in Ithaca's model the four inner planets are all within the Commons, so its Earth is less than a hundred feet from its Sun--nothing like one mile. Though I don't know where Pluto was in that model I walked from the Commons all the way out past Uranus, so unless something's grievously wrong with the scale I think Hawaii is out of the question.
Also, comparing the two: Ithaca's isn't three-dimensional, as the models are round plexiglass windows in stone gravestone-looking things (or rather little dots on those windows).
It's not even that the concepts behind the stories were so bad. It's that the screenplay adaptions of the stories were absolutely horrid...
Indeed. It almost seems like Lucas thought up the whole story a while ago, big-picture-wise, but now can't be bothered to actually write a script that could be filmed as a watchable movie. He would have done better to write a history book, Time-Life style, about the 'Rise and Fall of the Galactic Repuplic.' Or something.
>There are far, far more artistic sites then zombo.com
Indeed. Someone's alreday mentioned dextro.org; also check out turux.org which I think is by the same people.
But those are mostly Flash. There used to be a site at message.sk that had alot of actual html art, but there isn't now; but the person behind the message site also has a site at zden.localhost.sk that has some interesting stuff, such as this and this. And the of course there's always superbad.com... and I'm sure there are lots more besides; I hope I get to hear about some new ones from this story.
Well, the article goes so far as to say that 'Google's pages are filled with ads, but they are just text, which means the pages appear faster and, in the view of some users, look less cluttered.'
'Filled with ads' is, I believe, a bit much... It took a search for '"used car" travel "cruise ship"' to get the ads down to the bottom of the first page of results (and all the way on to the third page, in fact). Most of the time I don't see more than one or two ads for each search.
Antarctica is actually a desert, with little annual accumulation.
That's certainly true of the South Pole area itself, but from what I've read the edges of the continent get more than their fair share of snow. Reading the account of the Ross Sea party in Shackleton's book it certainly seemed like it snows there all the time!
But you're right, I find, that the problem at the South Pole station isn't new snow falling; it's the drifts of existing snow that buried the dome.
Quoth the article: 'Environmentalists appear relaxed about the scheme. The ice cap is a barren wilderness devoid of life.'
i think a highway costs somethign insane like $250,000 a foot for a 6 lane highway
Insightful my ass. '[T]he National Science Foundation in Virginia... is funding the $12-million project.' This ain't an American Thru-way, it's a one-lane ice road. A highway.
>Here in Bay Area we are fortunate.
Boston, too, is particularly blessed with good college stations: MIT (88.1) Emerson College (88.9), BC (90.3) and Harvard (95.3) together ensure us continuous access to good non-commercial music--non-commercial both in the sense of not being interrupted by ads, and also not programmed by corporations. XM may be able to offer the first of those things, but can it manage the second?
Yeah! And spend more time posting to slashdot, too!
... the company is taking its cue from TV and offering scheduled content in AOL 8.0 -- programming offered at specific times on specific days. "Not only do I need to be online because that's where my friends are and because I've got to check my e-mail," says AOL's Kimball, "but also because it's Tuesday night, when there'll be new artists online, and Thursday is movie review night. We're creating a model where I've got to be online Saturday morning, I've got to be there on Sunday night. I really think we're creating this pattern through the week where you feel like there's value in all of the time online."
In other words, they're trying to turn at least their corner of the internet into a place for mindless sheep to go and absorb whatever 'programming' AOL wants to give em? What on earth do they mean by 'value in all the time online'?! One of the things I hate most about tv is that it demands you pay attention when the networks want you to; why would we want the internet to be like that? What AOL really means, seems to me, is that they're creating value for themselves by forcing people to play by their schedules. After all, when content is on the web isn't just as valuble--in fact, immeasurably more valuable--if it's there all the time?
Also, I love it that the article quotes the guy who writes 'AOL for Dummies.' Heh.
>The attitude that "it doesn't matter if the page is coded properly, as long as it looks right" is akin to thinking that it doesn't matter if you use "there" or "their" when you're writing -- as long as you get your point across.
Which is... true. It doesn't matter, in alot of circumstances. Consider a less obvious example: using the word 'irregardless,' say. Pedantic linguistic purists may complain that we ought use 'regardless,' but both are perfectly comprehensible. Obviously, we can't just say whatever we want and expect to be understood. But since meaning is all we (the non-pedantic) really care about, we have quite a range of expression we can use.
Seems to me the same is true for web design. The standards-mad folks may be better than the complainy sorts who write in to newspaper language columns in that they're at least trying to adapt their standards to fit reality, but while they work at that most people are actually creating content. And since they want people to see it, don't most people create content that does work reasonably well on most browsers? I use Mozilla and I haven't come across more than a handful of sites that are noticeably broken.
Admittedly, I don't know nothing about real web design, and what standards-compliance would do for future development blah blah. But really the web works now, even for those of us who never touch IE. And if we extend your language analogy to deliberate language reforms, not to mention things like Esperanto, we see that just muddling along usually produces a better result than strict pedantic enforced formalism.