Sootman - you are sad. I'm not even sure if I should bother responding, but hell, I'm on a break. So, "Please go buy a dictionary and/or visit a high-school science or math teacher and get back to me" - what the heck is this in reference to? The FACT that anecdotal evidence is largely worthless compared to an actual, verifiable fact? The FACT that you may or may not be making up this anecdotal story and are pretending that people can come visit you and verify it for themselves? (What's your address again, smartboy?) Or the FACT that you haven't adequately bothered to respond to anything I actually said, and instead took offense and threw back FUD and a red herring?
I'm guessing you don't win many arguments - except for the "default win" of having people completely ignore you after your first response reveals what a waste of time it would be to continue.:) Have a great day!
Paraphrased:
"I don't care what the verifiable FACTS are - I only care about my unverified anecdotal stories."
(a) Please don't ever consider going into science as a career field;
(b) Hopefully it's clear (at least to the majority of readers out there), that personal, unverifiable anecdotal "evidence" is not a valid counterargument to factual data. That ISN'T to say that there aren't problems with the facts in this case - just saying that this "evidence" isn't worth anything in response to those facts.
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
You mean make up off the top of your head, don't you?
This list is ridiculous, and clearly has NOTHING to do with the operating system. Have you even USED it?
It seems to me that with minimal configuring, you can setup Microsoft Word 2007 to do exactly what you are asking - simple, easy to make chapter breaks, no spell check or auto complete, and auto-save every couple of minutes (or more) - with no real effect on what you are doing. It might take a small amount of knowledge to rip through the options menu, but I could do it in about two minutes. And with that, the word processor is out of the author's way.
Why doesn't anyone bother helping these people with little things like this?
What they cannot do, is to discriminate against other countries like they do with Antigua. They CAN'T? Where is this written, and how is it enforced? And why doesn't it apply universally - cause I sure hope you understand that it does NOT apply to all similar situations, and to other countries outside the United States....
Article Content (even Google cache is REALLY slow):
The way water striders walk on water was discovered years ago. The insect uses its long legs to help evenly distribute its tiny body weight. The weight is distributed over a large area so that the fragile skin formed by surface tension supports the bug on the water. However, the ability of water striders to jump onto water without sinking has baffled scientists, until now.
A team of researchers at Seoul National University, led by Ho-Young Kim and Duck-Gyu Lee, has finally answered that question. By using a highly water-repellent sphere, which mimicked the actions of the water strider's highly water-repellent legs, they were able to determine a small range of speeds at which the sphere or insect could hit the water and not sink.
If the sphere hit too fast, it would shoot through the surface of the water. If it hit too slow, it would not bounce back and sink. The water strider is one of the fastest moving insects in the world. It can travel up to 100 times the length of its body in one second, equivalent to around 400 mph in human terms.
Scientists hope to adapt this technology to the obvious sector; creepy sounding robots. One team at Carnegie Mellon University has already developed a small spider robot that can walk on water like the strider.
The Korean scientists believe their discovery will help create robots that can travel over still bodies of water. They say the robots can be used to explore or monitor water quality. Also they could, and it's highly likely that they will, be used as a form of spy robot.
While this is all well and good, and a touch unnerving since it reminds me of several scary sci-fi books, I'll be a lot more interested when they invent something that allows humans to walk on water this quickly.
MIT researchers report in the Aug. 7 issue of Nature that they now understand how the insects known as water striders skim effortlessly across the surface of ponds and oceans.
And:
Using mathematics, high-speed photography and a variety of flow visualization techniques, Bush, mathematics graduate student David L. Hu and mechanical engineering graduate student Brian Chan uncovered the true way in which water striders walk on water.
As the insect rests on the surface, the tips of its thin legs create miniscule valleys. It sculls the middle set of its three pairs of legs like oars, causing the water behind those legs to propel it forward as the surface of the valley rebounds like a trampoline.
Although the rowing motion does create tiny waves, "the waves do not play a significant role in the momentum transfer necessary for propulsion," the researchers wrote. "The momentum transfer is primarily in the form of subsurface vortices."
Gasoline is the name of a petroleum product that makes cars go. Plastic is another petroleum product. "Gas" is a shortening of "Gasoline," and is almost always clear in context. I'm hoping most people understand that you aren't talking about plastic when you say something like "My car needs petrol," but I'd say "gas", at least, is a better word for, you know, gasoline, then "petrol" - especially since it's not a commonly used word, unless one is talking about biological concerns.
Good points, and sorry if I'm not coming across as calm. I'm not freaking out, but this stuff definitely gets my goat. Who isn't tired of only hearing about extremist agendas in this country?
Do you honestly believe cost is only measured in dollars? Or time?
Do you have any idea how much it costs, in time, in resources, and in people to hand count, publicly and in a recordable fashion, every single time we vote on anything? Talk about bullshit.
As for the "foolproof"-ness of the old way - well, shit man, I've got a bridge to sell you. Honestly, that's the ONLY way you can think of to mess with the "old way" of hand counting everything? That's completely insane, and ignorant. Do a two second google search and educate yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Sootman - you are sad. I'm not even sure if I should bother responding, but hell, I'm on a break. So, "Please go buy a dictionary and/or visit a high-school science or math teacher and get back to me" - what the heck is this in reference to? The FACT that anecdotal evidence is largely worthless compared to an actual, verifiable fact? The FACT that you may or may not be making up this anecdotal story and are pretending that people can come visit you and verify it for themselves? (What's your address again, smartboy?) Or the FACT that you haven't adequately bothered to respond to anything I actually said, and instead took offense and threw back FUD and a red herring? I'm guessing you don't win many arguments - except for the "default win" of having people completely ignore you after your first response reveals what a waste of time it would be to continue. :) Have a great day!
Wow, you are scary. Please tell me you don't own any weapons.
Paraphrased: "I don't care what the verifiable FACTS are - I only care about my unverified anecdotal stories." (a) Please don't ever consider going into science as a career field; (b) Hopefully it's clear (at least to the majority of readers out there), that personal, unverifiable anecdotal "evidence" is not a valid counterargument to factual data. That ISN'T to say that there aren't problems with the facts in this case - just saying that this "evidence" isn't worth anything in response to those facts.
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. You mean make up off the top of your head, don't you? This list is ridiculous, and clearly has NOTHING to do with the operating system. Have you even USED it?
RTM.... RTM.... RTM.... Are you sure you know what you are looking for?
Nicely put!
Well, moving the ruler DOES make it "miss the point". Please review the parent post I was responding to. Thanks.
Wouldn't THAT be nice?
It seems to me that with minimal configuring, you can setup Microsoft Word 2007 to do exactly what you are asking - simple, easy to make chapter breaks, no spell check or auto complete, and auto-save every couple of minutes (or more) - with no real effect on what you are doing. It might take a small amount of knowledge to rip through the options menu, but I could do it in about two minutes. And with that, the word processor is out of the author's way. Why doesn't anyone bother helping these people with little things like this?
Why were the scientists surprised? Do they think that no meteorites fell to the Earth at any other time? That seems weird.
Yes, this was pointed out a few hours ago, and I responded. Feel free to check the thread. You know, RTFT? ;)
Article Content (even Google cache is REALLY slow):
The way water striders walk on water was discovered years ago. The insect uses its long legs to help evenly distribute its tiny body weight. The weight is distributed over a large area so that the fragile skin formed by surface tension supports the bug on the water. However, the ability of water striders to jump onto water without sinking has baffled scientists, until now.
A team of researchers at Seoul National University, led by Ho-Young Kim and Duck-Gyu Lee, has finally answered that question. By using a highly water-repellent sphere, which mimicked the actions of the water strider's highly water-repellent legs, they were able to determine a small range of speeds at which the sphere or insect could hit the water and not sink.
If the sphere hit too fast, it would shoot through the surface of the water. If it hit too slow, it would not bounce back and sink. The water strider is one of the fastest moving insects in the world. It can travel up to 100 times the length of its body in one second, equivalent to around 400 mph in human terms.
Scientists hope to adapt this technology to the obvious sector; creepy sounding robots. One team at Carnegie Mellon University has already developed a small spider robot that can walk on water like the strider.
The Korean scientists believe their discovery will help create robots that can travel over still bodies of water. They say the robots can be used to explore or monitor water quality. Also they could, and it's highly likely that they will, be used as a form of spy robot.
While this is all well and good, and a touch unnerving since it reminds me of several scary sci-fi books, I'll be a lot more interested when they invent something that allows humans to walk on water this quickly.
Oh! Gotcha. Unfortunately, I'm still trying to get the article to load, and I must have misread the summary.
Thanks.
But I believe we've had a theory for this for awhile now. In August of 2003, MIT published some information on the subject. Here's a link:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2003/robostrider.html
Here's some relevant content from that link:
MIT researchers report in the Aug. 7 issue of Nature that they now understand how the insects known as water striders skim effortlessly across the surface of ponds and oceans.
And:
Using mathematics, high-speed photography and a variety of flow visualization techniques, Bush, mathematics graduate student David L. Hu and mechanical engineering graduate student Brian Chan uncovered the true way in which water striders walk on water.
As the insect rests on the surface, the tips of its thin legs create miniscule valleys. It sculls the middle set of its three pairs of legs like oars, causing the water behind those legs to propel it forward as the surface of the valley rebounds like a trampoline. Although the rowing motion does create tiny waves, "the waves do not play a significant role in the momentum transfer necessary for propulsion," the researchers wrote. "The momentum transfer is primarily in the form of subsurface vortices."
Consider me schooled, ya'all. :)
Gasoline is the name of a petroleum product that makes cars go. Plastic is another petroleum product. "Gas" is a shortening of "Gasoline," and is almost always clear in context. I'm hoping most people understand that you aren't talking about plastic when you say something like "My car needs petrol," but I'd say "gas", at least, is a better word for, you know, gasoline, then "petrol" - especially since it's not a commonly used word, unless one is talking about biological concerns.
Well, I'd love to discuss this further, but since you don't seem to care, I won't waste my time. Let me know if you change your mind.
So, none of the other benefits (elucidated so grandly and copiously) from the 500 or so other posts on this topic counteract that?
Nice catch - I forgot the summary made that pretty clear too, didn't it? :D
Great post!
Please read the article. You aren't talking about the same thing, in any way.
Can you elaborate? Why would it be "no better than pen and paper"?
Good points, and sorry if I'm not coming across as calm. I'm not freaking out, but this stuff definitely gets my goat. Who isn't tired of only hearing about extremist agendas in this country?
Do you honestly believe cost is only measured in dollars? Or time? Do you have any idea how much it costs, in time, in resources, and in people to hand count, publicly and in a recordable fashion, every single time we vote on anything? Talk about bullshit. As for the "foolproof"-ness of the old way - well, shit man, I've got a bridge to sell you. Honestly, that's the ONLY way you can think of to mess with the "old way" of hand counting everything? That's completely insane, and ignorant. Do a two second google search and educate yourself.