- Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore? It'll be just like that! - God, if only that War on Drugs hadn't been so effective! I could really use some fucking marijuana right now.
Which organisation in the USA employs the most people? One would hope that your federal government is not being run on a for-profit basis.
Of course, many products and services can be (and are) provided on a not-for-profit basis, provided by people who are gainfully employed. Quick examples: consider a church pastor, a scout leader, or a food bank director, none of whom are government employees and none of whom are working for profit. And in a for-profit business, the profit is normally claimed by the business owner(s), not the employees (who are considered an expense to be minimised).
The 'counter example' proves the universal rule, if anything, no? Was the original claim not that we can read the internally-jumbled text without much difficulty? I do not recall anyone claiming that the jumbled text was 'exactly as easy to read' as un-jumbled text. This minor elevated difficulty is still true in the 'counter example', if slightly increased from the initial item.
I have noted this previously, but on an aged thread: it seems that a simple inversion of the internal characters of a word is the worst case of internal letter rearrangement (i.e., the aggregate displacement of letters is maximised in the inversion). So we should have predicted that the inversion is hardest to read. Of course, by hardest, I mean compared to other internal jumblings--the text was still quite simple to read!
Note also that larger words have more possible combinations of rearrangement, and average a higher aggregate displacement... and the UBC 'counter example', in fine post-secondary form, uses big words.
As a degree holder, you must know that psychology is largely an exercise of statistics, as in "lies, damn lies, and statistics". Small sample sizes are a bit hard to accept at an intuitive level, but I have seen very few published results proved wrong due to the initial sample size... there are so many other things that can be wrong or go wrong!
Tangentially: a BA in Cognitive Science? Shouldn't that be Cognitive Art, then?
It seems that a simple inversion of the internal characters of a word is the worst case of internal letter rearrangement (i.e., the aggregate displacement of letters is maximised in the inversion). So we should have predicted that the inversion is hardest to read. Note also that larger words have more possible combinations of rearrangement, and average a higher aggregate displacement... and the UBC counterexample, in fine post-secondary form, uses big words.
Every story there revolves around how the US is part of some
secret conspiracy to rule the world.
You are right, that is misleading: there is no secret about it! Global domination is an official policy of the US government. You did read the US National Security Strategy of 2002, didn't you?
I can just picture a micrometer now; you know, a tiny measuring device (i.e., a meter) a millionth the size of a normal one. Why, it would be so tiny that you would need to measure it in micrometres (i.e., tiny units of length, each a millions the size of a metre)!
Seems rather silly that a now-abandoned patent claim from more than a decade earlier can be an acceptable foundation for a whole chain of dubious patent claims, culminating in an actual (though sketchy, of course) grant of patent in 1996. Looks like the continuation of pending patents a strong business method, and might thus itself be patentable.
Any thoughts? Maybe IBM holds a patent that covers the application of this flavour of manipulation of the US Patent Office as a business method? Maybe they will countersue when PanIP knocks on their door?
According to an obsolete brief, on 1993-02-16, the Copyright Reform Act of 1993 was introduced in both houses of the US Congress. If the bill passes [I assume it did?], [it will] remove the requirement for registration prior to bringing suit, and would remove the restrictions on statutory damages that are described above.
Looks like a reason why registrations would trail off...
Aye. QWERTY is good for typewriters, but not so good for writers.
QWERTY is a common (though bogus, we now know) example of commercial 'path dependence'. The 4% efficiency gain of the Dvorak (cf. above for the reference), or an even better gain from a new layout, suggest that it is still worth migrating away from QWERTY, despite its current ubiquity.
Hopefully QWERTY will indeed be the next cursive, in this regard.
As an exmaple, Dvorak's key layout is, indeed, more efficient for typists than the QWERTY. Early research on that topic might have been biased by Dvorak himself, but a more robust examination provided solid evidence five years ago.
With decades of further ergonomics and language learning under our belts since Dvorak made his design, one would think we could improve upon QWERTY even more drastically today.
Slashdot Mirror
One would hope that your federal government is not being run on a for-profit basis.
Of course, many products and services can be (and are) provided on a not-for-profit basis, provided by people who are gainfully employed. Quick examples: consider a church pastor, a scout leader, or a food bank director, none of whom are government employees and none of whom are working for profit.
And in a for-profit business, the profit is normally claimed by the business owner(s), not the employees (who are considered an expense to be minimised).
What about the rest of us, who are 'merely' people, and not incorporated profit-driven organisations?
Wow, the Internet! That really narrows it down, eh?
I have noted this previously, but on an aged thread: it seems that a simple inversion of the internal characters of a word is the worst case of internal letter rearrangement (i.e., the aggregate displacement of letters is maximised in the inversion). So we should have predicted that the inversion is hardest to read. Of course, by hardest, I mean compared to other internal jumblings--the text was still quite simple to read!
Note also that larger words have more possible combinations of rearrangement, and average a higher aggregate displacement... and the UBC 'counter example', in fine post-secondary form, uses big words.
Tangentially: a BA in Cognitive Science? Shouldn't that be Cognitive Art, then?
Indeed, some languages, e.g., formal Hebrew (or was it an archaic form thereof?), are properly written as consonants only.
It seems that a simple inversion of the internal characters of a word is the worst case of internal letter rearrangement (i.e., the aggregate displacement of letters is maximised in the inversion). So we should have predicted that the inversion is hardest to read.
Note also that larger words have more possible combinations of rearrangement, and average a higher aggregate displacement... and the UBC counterexample, in fine post-secondary form, uses big words.
You are right, that is misleading: there is no secret about it! Global domination is an official policy of the US government. You did read the US National Security Strategy of 2002, didn't you?
I can just picture a micrometer now; you know, a tiny measuring device (i.e., a meter) a millionth the size of a normal one. Why, it would be so tiny that you would need to measure it in micrometres (i.e., tiny units of length, each a millions the size of a metre)!
Seems rather silly that a now-abandoned patent claim from more than a decade earlier can be an acceptable foundation for a whole chain of dubious patent claims, culminating in an actual (though sketchy, of course) grant of patent in 1996. Looks like the continuation of pending patents a strong business method, and might thus itself be patentable.
Any thoughts? Maybe IBM holds a patent that covers the application of this flavour of manipulation of the US Patent Office as a business method? Maybe they will countersue when PanIP knocks on their door?
... based on both outcomes, unfortunately for those near me.
If it is so ubiquitous, why embed a link to it?
According to an obsolete brief, on 1993-02-16, the Copyright Reform Act of 1993 was introduced in both houses of the US Congress. If the bill passes [I assume it did?], [it will] remove the requirement for registration prior to bringing suit, and would remove the restrictions on statutory damages that are described above.
Looks like a reason why registrations would trail off...
Aye. QWERTY is good for typewriters, but not so good for writers.
QWERTY is a common (though bogus, we now know) example of commercial 'path dependence'. The 4% efficiency gain of the Dvorak (cf. above for the reference), or an even better gain from a new layout, suggest that it is still worth migrating away from QWERTY, despite its current ubiquity.
Hopefully QWERTY will indeed be the next cursive, in this regard.
As an exmaple, Dvorak's key layout is, indeed, more efficient for typists than the QWERTY. Early research on that topic might have been biased by Dvorak himself, but a more robust examination provided solid evidence five years ago.
With decades of further ergonomics and language learning under our belts since Dvorak made his design, one would think we could improve upon QWERTY even more drastically today.