I already did, back in 2028. Also, you should notice sometime in 2009 that all your notes and manuscripts are missing. It's okay though, the market for books is much better in 2028 after the atomic bombing of Hollywood destroyed most other forms of entertainment. And don't bother suing, I already settled with you in 2030. You get a billion dollars, which in 2030 is enough to afford a condominium in San Francisco--not much but more than you would have gotten doing it yourself.
Actually, if we made everyone fabulously wealthy (i.e. as wealthy as the US, Western Europe, Japan), population growth would stall entirely, since that's what happened when the US, Western Europe, and Japan all became fabulously wealthy. The problem is, making everyone fabulously wealthy (i.e. "economic development" or "globalization") will...lead to a shortage of resources. It's not population growth that's the issue.
Population growth these days is simply self-perpetuating poverty, and poverty doesn't put up much of a fight for resources. (Okay, maybe that means all the poor countries starve to death, but at least the rest of us don't have to go to war. Even if it is North Korea--sure, they have nuclear bombs, but if they actually use them instead of just making vague threats about it, they're not getting any more food aid.) It's development that's the issue. Poor countries don't want to stay poor, but rich people somehow want to pay the same price for gasoline even when poor countries are getting rich enough to afford some and increase demand.
My problem is not the type of people who seek to disprove Einstein using science. My problem is the type of people who seek to discredit Einstein using populist rhetoric and unscientific, political posturing in order to accomplish some political goal. Many of the "global warming skeptics" are either oil companies, people fundamentally uncomfortable with environmental regulations, and your perennial right-wing anti-intellectuals, far more often than they are actual climatologists with a competing theory. I hate to Godwin the thread, but you set me up perfectly for it--the "global warming skeptics" most of us are concerned with are more analogous to the Nazis who discredited Einstein as "Jewish physics" without even understanding it--and not because they cared about physics, but rather because it fit in with their broader political program. In the case of global warming, the "skeptics" are more like the Einstein-hating nutjobs of Nazi Germany, or the Darwin-hating nutjobs of Kansas, than they are ambitious young scientists wanting to join in the age-old scientific practice of disproving old theories.
Honestly, how many here who readily bash Fox News (or "Faux News" as some gleefully exclaim) would then hold up Dan "Memogate" Rather, Keith Olbermann or the Daily Kos as pillars of "unbiased" journalism? I'd say quite a few.
Given that Dan Rather is retired, Keith Olbermann is an admittedly biased political commentator, and Daily Kos is a self proclaimed "Democratic...partisan blog", I don't think it's fair to compare it to something that uses the phrase "Fair and Balanced" as a trademarked slogan.
On the other hand, the other alphabet soup news agencies steadfastly proclaim their absolute lack of bias, when anyone with eyes to see can see the obvious liberal bias.
I'm pretty sure Fox still goes around using slogans like "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide".
Maybe that's why Fox News is absolutely STOMPING the other news agencies in the open market. Not because they are necessarily better, but because people are more willing to trust someone who admits their general leanings UP FRONT, rather than someone who claims an absolute moral authority they clearly have no right to.
Or because Rupert Murdoch was clever enough to notice that there was a lot of outcry against "liberal media" and that he could make bank by selling "conservative media". In reality, Fox is biased towards making money. If you look over the Murdoch media empire you see things like topless "Page 3 girls" in Murdoch-owned The Sun and edgy, decidedly not-conservative sitcoms and cartoons on the Fox TV network, because Murdoch is, rather than being devoted to unbiased journalism or even conservative propagandizing, an expert at finding unfilled niches within the media and filling them.
Also keep in mind that the TV market itself is becoming skewed. It's no longer a safe assumption that everyone watches TV. The middle-American evangelical types watch more TV than urban left-wing progressives, so it's obvious which news bias will get higher ratings.
Further, they are modeling inherently chaotic systems which we have trouble forecasting only a week into the future. Hubris, anyone?
Connect two chambers together with a tube. One is filled with hot air, one is filled with cold air. While we cannot predict the exact action of one single hot-air particle, it is a statistical certainty that the temperatures of the two tubes will ultimately even out and stay that way perpetually--so much so that we call this the second law of thermodynamics. Chaotic microsystems over a macroscale become easily predictable.
Alternatively, put a pot of water on the stove, and try to predict whether and when the column of water 3 centimeters from the edge, 44 clockwise from the exact front of the pot will bubble, assuming you sprinkle a certain amount of salt into the pot and put a lid on it. Difficult to predict. But you can predict that the pot is going to heat up, and that it will heat to a higher temperature before boiling if you put more salt into it, and that it will heat faster if you put the lid on.
That's just stupid. You can justify breaking DRM to rip and copy CDs because of concerns from handling disks, but piracy? I don't want to be troll-ish, but that is just stupid. Do you justify kidnapping? Would you want to carry in your body for nine months something which will end up being worthless if you don't treat it with extreme care?
Actually, I've heard very similar arguments for keeping abortion legal. Goddamn babies, if you drop them they're scrambled for life! I never wanted this kind of responsibility!
Yes, and I'm going to be exactly that rigorous making a quick point on Slashdot, since a quick point and a funny mod are that important to me. Besides, your way doesn't work either, because there is more than one equally good way to translate a given set of text, and it wouldn't be immediately easy to tell whether the translator under test was bad or just different.
Thanks for telling me that. I have a lot of bacteria in my mouth and throat I need to take care of all of a sudden. And maybe some more down in my stomach. Now, is beer or wine sufficient or will I get the best effects from scotch?
And hey: if you want to believe that every electronic election is rigged, no matter how eventually open source, now matter how eventualy trackable by paper-trail, etc., be my guest.
You do realize that none of those terms describes the Diebold system, right?
Keep in mind that most of the electronic voting solutions were the result of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which was supposed to address the alleged and/or real problems and unfairness of 2000...
You say that as if federal legislation could never lead to horrible, unforeseen consequences.
An English major should not be stopped from graduating because he or she can't pass calculus, for example.
Far as I know, they don't have to pass calculus.
Taking a class for only a semester merely ensures that just when you're getting the hang of it, it's time to stop.
No--it's time to pass the final exam so you can take the sequel next semester. One semester you take Calculus 1, and the next semester you take Calculus 2. That's as opposed to simply taking a year of calculus. There's a difference in that you have to pass an exam halfway through to advance, but that's the most significant difference I can see.
From what I've gathered from you, the systems aren't as fundamentally different as I had thought, so I'm not sure if it's worthy to pursue this much further.
You understand that this is true for adults as well, right?
Childish adults, maybe. Perhaps by definition. I don't think it was by accident that Golding's characters were all adolescent or preadolescent boys.
In the private schools, there was always somebody watching over the kids to make sure that kind of thing didn't happen. It's not that there weren't fights or anything, but you generally didn't have one group of kids trying to set up some sort of totalitarian government over the others.
You must have gone to a better private school than I. It may have stopped short of physical violence, but the basic power structures still existed.
BTW, in the public schools, the way to deal with that problem was to beat the living daylights out of the self-elected dictator.
That's how you become self-elected dictator, both in Latin American countries and on the playground. Of course, if you're the fat kid with the glasses you're not going to become self-elected dictator, and the self-elected dictator sure isn't gonna let you be his friend either.
Thanks for those wonderful stereotyped, inaccurate and completely irrelevant images. Please send me any gold-headed canes you find, as I'm sure their scarcity makes them worth listing on eBay.
Hey, you give me 19th century ideas, I provide the imagery.
The point is not that you're *stuck* in a system from which you cannot change, but that you gradually start narrowing down your options and studying your chosen subjects in more detail rather than studying multiple subjects without sufficient understanding of any of them.
It's not that I object to so much as barriers to entry arising early on. If, as you say, the UK system is flexible, I have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is having to start limiting your options at the age of 14. Of course, what if you want to be an engineer who has an interest in poetry or literature or philosophy? You're hosed?
What I like about the U.S. system is that once you get into university, you can take lower-division courses wherever you want if you're not sure what you want yet. If you didn't take calculus in high school, you can still try it out, and if you do well, maybe go into engineering or science. If you think you can pass the course, it's up to you to take it. I never had any problem taking a focused course of study--if I wanted or needed to I could have graduated in 3 years, and so could many students--and I actually started that way.
The universities here get you to study each subject for a term, possibly a period of only 4 weeks during summer semesters. How can you learn and remember a subject thoroughly in that time? You can't. You can however get a good understanding when you study a subject for a year at a time.
This isn't as much a difference as you think it is. In the UK, you might have one year-long course. In the US, you have two- or three-course sequences which you take in the fall and spring semesters, or the fall, winter, and spring quarters, depending on how your university operates. And I've never even seen a four-week summer session--mine have been six or eight weeks. They're also either (a) for ambitious students who are relying on themselves to be able to retain a semester's worth of work in eight weeks or (b) for unambitious students who failed it the first time around, in which case they've had even longer than most students working on the subject.
And I'm sure you could get a great living in the coal mines, if you could find one. Good luck with that.
We still have coal mines in America. One in Utah collapsed earlier this month, trapping the miners inside. I vaguely recall reading that most of Britain's coal mines didn't survive the Thatcher era, but you probably have some too.
As to the modern American military... pray to God that we never have to fight a real war against a competant enemy, as apparently we can barely hold our own against third world savages.
Read some history. Neither could the English, or indeed 19th-century Americans, without becoming butchers.
I wasn't really passing judgment on it either way, just providing an example that could be read by as many people as possible. I'm not fluent enough in German to translate it once and then translate it back myself, and if I did that, it would be a test of my talents as much as Babelfish's, so this was the best method I could choose.
And for the rest of us it's down to the coal mines, eh? Let me tell you about my experience. If you asked me at age 14, I would have told you that I had no chance in a computer science program. As a 14 year old boy I detested math, was annoyed with science, had no patience or attention to detail, and would rather have gone into an easier field. I stunted my own ambitions and sold myself short. If I were in the UK system, I'd probably be stuck in some dead-end job by now doing something I absolutely detested. Thankfully, since I'm treated like an adult with my own freedom to choose, I eventually found out in college that I can handle computer science, rather enjoy science and math, and as I've matured, I've discovered I have more patience, attention to detail, and will to succeed. Given the opportunity to learn these things about myself, I'm rather satisfied that I'll end up productive, happy, and probably even more useful to society. This happened, not because I was beaten about the head and shoulders with a gold-figurine-headed cane by some guy with a monocle, but because I had the opportunity and freedom to find out for myself.
Thank you, Benito Mussolini. You have possibly the single most depressing view of human potential I've ever seen. Tell me something, if it's unimportant how happy people are within a society, then what is the goal of the society? To serve the will of its unelected, hereditary leaders? To conquer a world-spanning empire? It's very hard to read your post without imagining you wearing either some ridiculous military uniform or a fashionable 19th-century suit with a monacle and handlebar mustache.
"Our offspring" are human beings, dammit. They don't exist to carry on some 19th-century industrial society you've set up for them. The day has long passed from when we send our sons down into the coal mines and our daughters off to marry the neighbor's son.
And I'll have you know that there are 20, 21, and 22 year old men entrusted with the lives of dozens others in our military even today, or with the fates of their own businesses and multi-million dollar fortunes earned by their own hand, but only by their choice and ambition.
The point I'm taking from Lord of the Flies is that children (particularly boys, if you want to consider that aspect of the work), left to their own devices, will devise the worst possible type of society and institutionalize their own brutality. This is exactly what happens in schools, during recess, etc.
Asians and Britons can train their children to become servants to "the greater good" of society as much as they want. But society is composed of individuals, and life is long enough that perhaps giving people more time to experiment and decide makes them happier with what they ultimately choose. I would prefer not to be trained from youth to face the world with a grim-faced sense of duty, and I'm sorry that you were.
but at this age school is for two things: learning basic "booksmart" skills to make it in life (math, reading, writing, how the government works) and human interaction. The human interaction part is recess and after school, during class they need to be told what to do and everyone needs the same stuff
Did you ever stop to realize that the "human interaction" is with other children? I don't think knowing how to survive in Lord of the Flies is anything we should be forced to learn, especially not the hard way.
Well, comparatively few people here speak German. Nonetheless, if it's an accurate translator, translating over and back again should introduce only twice as many translation errors as a single translation, so it's still a good measurement.
I'm not sure when this was written, but nowadays we have things like babelfish and google's language tools and Amikai (not a misspelling) that do instant translation fairly well. "Babelfish" itself is not based on Star Trek but instead on another piece of Sci-Fi, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which is itself filled with ridiculously nonsensical things. Nevertheless, babelfish now exists. The algorithms are always improving. I don't see why it's impossible to think that someday we can add voice to those algorithms and put the whole thing on a chip with a small speaker that fits in your ear. (I also don't see what NASA's problem is with "standard frequencies" - few of the aliens in Star Trek live in a vacuum, they've all been in contact with other species and are usually part of one or another galactic organizations. Only non-warp enabled aliens live in a vacuum.)
Or, as Babelfish would say (English to German and back:)
I am not safe, when this was written, but nowadays to have we of things as babelfish and that googles of language tools and Amikai (not a false spelling) the immediate translation rather well do. "Babelfish" is not based on Sterntrek however instead of on another piece of Sci FI, the leader of the trampers to the galaxy, which is filled even with ridiculously senseless things. Exists nevertheless babelfish now. The algorithms always improve. I do not see, why it is impossible to think that a daily we can add voice those algorithms and set the complete thing on a splinter with a small loudspeaker, that into your ear fits (I also do not see, problem of which NASAS with "standard frequencies" am - few the foreigner in the Sterntrek, which is in a vacuum phases, have her everything, those in connection with other sort to be and are normally part of or other galactic organizations. Non--reject only the made possible foreigners, those in a vacuum. Phases are)
If it could, it would do that not only to the guy who was shot, but also to the shooter. Well, assuming there were windows within 10 feet of both of them.
Slashdot Mirror
I already did, back in 2028. Also, you should notice sometime in 2009 that all your notes and manuscripts are missing. It's okay though, the market for books is much better in 2028 after the atomic bombing of Hollywood destroyed most other forms of entertainment. And don't bother suing, I already settled with you in 2030. You get a billion dollars, which in 2030 is enough to afford a condominium in San Francisco--not much but more than you would have gotten doing it yourself.
Actually, if we made everyone fabulously wealthy (i.e. as wealthy as the US, Western Europe, Japan), population growth would stall entirely, since that's what happened when the US, Western Europe, and Japan all became fabulously wealthy. The problem is, making everyone fabulously wealthy (i.e. "economic development" or "globalization") will...lead to a shortage of resources. It's not population growth that's the issue.
Population growth these days is simply self-perpetuating poverty, and poverty doesn't put up much of a fight for resources. (Okay, maybe that means all the poor countries starve to death, but at least the rest of us don't have to go to war. Even if it is North Korea--sure, they have nuclear bombs, but if they actually use them instead of just making vague threats about it, they're not getting any more food aid.) It's development that's the issue. Poor countries don't want to stay poor, but rich people somehow want to pay the same price for gasoline even when poor countries are getting rich enough to afford some and increase demand.
My problem is not the type of people who seek to disprove Einstein using science. My problem is the type of people who seek to discredit Einstein using populist rhetoric and unscientific, political posturing in order to accomplish some political goal. Many of the "global warming skeptics" are either oil companies, people fundamentally uncomfortable with environmental regulations, and your perennial right-wing anti-intellectuals, far more often than they are actual climatologists with a competing theory. I hate to Godwin the thread, but you set me up perfectly for it--the "global warming skeptics" most of us are concerned with are more analogous to the Nazis who discredited Einstein as "Jewish physics" without even understanding it--and not because they cared about physics, but rather because it fit in with their broader political program. In the case of global warming, the "skeptics" are more like the Einstein-hating nutjobs of Nazi Germany, or the Darwin-hating nutjobs of Kansas, than they are ambitious young scientists wanting to join in the age-old scientific practice of disproving old theories.
Given that Dan Rather is retired, Keith Olbermann is an admittedly biased political commentator, and Daily Kos is a self proclaimed "Democratic...partisan blog", I don't think it's fair to compare it to something that uses the phrase "Fair and Balanced" as a trademarked slogan.
On the other hand, the other alphabet soup news agencies steadfastly proclaim their absolute lack of bias, when anyone with eyes to see can see the obvious liberal bias.I'm pretty sure Fox still goes around using slogans like "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide".
Maybe that's why Fox News is absolutely STOMPING the other news agencies in the open market. Not because they are necessarily better, but because people are more willing to trust someone who admits their general leanings UP FRONT, rather than someone who claims an absolute moral authority they clearly have no right to.Or because Rupert Murdoch was clever enough to notice that there was a lot of outcry against "liberal media" and that he could make bank by selling "conservative media". In reality, Fox is biased towards making money. If you look over the Murdoch media empire you see things like topless "Page 3 girls" in Murdoch-owned The Sun and edgy, decidedly not-conservative sitcoms and cartoons on the Fox TV network, because Murdoch is, rather than being devoted to unbiased journalism or even conservative propagandizing, an expert at finding unfilled niches within the media and filling them.
Also keep in mind that the TV market itself is becoming skewed. It's no longer a safe assumption that everyone watches TV. The middle-American evangelical types watch more TV than urban left-wing progressives, so it's obvious which news bias will get higher ratings.
Connect two chambers together with a tube. One is filled with hot air, one is filled with cold air. While we cannot predict the exact action of one single hot-air particle, it is a statistical certainty that the temperatures of the two tubes will ultimately even out and stay that way perpetually--so much so that we call this the second law of thermodynamics. Chaotic microsystems over a macroscale become easily predictable.
Alternatively, put a pot of water on the stove, and try to predict whether and when the column of water 3 centimeters from the edge, 44 clockwise from the exact front of the pot will bubble, assuming you sprinkle a certain amount of salt into the pot and put a lid on it. Difficult to predict. But you can predict that the pot is going to heat up, and that it will heat to a higher temperature before boiling if you put more salt into it, and that it will heat faster if you put the lid on.
Actually, I've heard very similar arguments for keeping abortion legal. Goddamn babies, if you drop them they're scrambled for life! I never wanted this kind of responsibility!
Yes, and I'm going to be exactly that rigorous making a quick point on Slashdot, since a quick point and a funny mod are that important to me. Besides, your way doesn't work either, because there is more than one equally good way to translate a given set of text, and it wouldn't be immediately easy to tell whether the translator under test was bad or just different.
Yes, but he goes the distance and only loses in a split decision. Of course *I* know that because *I* have seen the movie.
Thanks for telling me that. I have a lot of bacteria in my mouth and throat I need to take care of all of a sudden. And maybe some more down in my stomach. Now, is beer or wine sufficient or will I get the best effects from scotch?
Segata Sanshiro says, "Sega Saturn shiro!"*
*Literally, "You must play Sega Saturn!"
You do realize that none of those terms describes the Diebold system, right?
Keep in mind that most of the electronic voting solutions were the result of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which was supposed to address the alleged and/or real problems and unfairness of 2000...You say that as if federal legislation could never lead to horrible, unforeseen consequences.
Far as I know, they don't have to pass calculus.
Taking a class for only a semester merely ensures that just when you're getting the hang of it, it's time to stop.No--it's time to pass the final exam so you can take the sequel next semester. One semester you take Calculus 1, and the next semester you take Calculus 2. That's as opposed to simply taking a year of calculus. There's a difference in that you have to pass an exam halfway through to advance, but that's the most significant difference I can see.
From what I've gathered from you, the systems aren't as fundamentally different as I had thought, so I'm not sure if it's worthy to pursue this much further.
Childish adults, maybe. Perhaps by definition. I don't think it was by accident that Golding's characters were all adolescent or preadolescent boys.
In the private schools, there was always somebody watching over the kids to make sure that kind of thing didn't happen. It's not that there weren't fights or anything, but you generally didn't have one group of kids trying to set up some sort of totalitarian government over the others.You must have gone to a better private school than I. It may have stopped short of physical violence, but the basic power structures still existed.
BTW, in the public schools, the way to deal with that problem was to beat the living daylights out of the self-elected dictator.That's how you become self-elected dictator, both in Latin American countries and on the playground. Of course, if you're the fat kid with the glasses you're not going to become self-elected dictator, and the self-elected dictator sure isn't gonna let you be his friend either.
Hey, you give me 19th century ideas, I provide the imagery.
The point is not that you're *stuck* in a system from which you cannot change, but that you gradually start narrowing down your options and studying your chosen subjects in more detail rather than studying multiple subjects without sufficient understanding of any of them.It's not that I object to so much as barriers to entry arising early on. If, as you say, the UK system is flexible, I have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is having to start limiting your options at the age of 14. Of course, what if you want to be an engineer who has an interest in poetry or literature or philosophy? You're hosed?
What I like about the U.S. system is that once you get into university, you can take lower-division courses wherever you want if you're not sure what you want yet. If you didn't take calculus in high school, you can still try it out, and if you do well, maybe go into engineering or science. If you think you can pass the course, it's up to you to take it. I never had any problem taking a focused course of study--if I wanted or needed to I could have graduated in 3 years, and so could many students--and I actually started that way.
The universities here get you to study each subject for a term, possibly a period of only 4 weeks during summer semesters. How can you learn and remember a subject thoroughly in that time? You can't. You can however get a good understanding when you study a subject for a year at a time.This isn't as much a difference as you think it is. In the UK, you might have one year-long course. In the US, you have two- or three-course sequences which you take in the fall and spring semesters, or the fall, winter, and spring quarters, depending on how your university operates. And I've never even seen a four-week summer session--mine have been six or eight weeks. They're also either (a) for ambitious students who are relying on themselves to be able to retain a semester's worth of work in eight weeks or (b) for unambitious students who failed it the first time around, in which case they've had even longer than most students working on the subject.
And I'm sure you could get a great living in the coal mines, if you could find one. Good luck with that.We still have coal mines in America. One in Utah collapsed earlier this month, trapping the miners inside. I vaguely recall reading that most of Britain's coal mines didn't survive the Thatcher era, but you probably have some too.
Read some history. Neither could the English, or indeed 19th-century Americans, without becoming butchers.
I wasn't really passing judgment on it either way, just providing an example that could be read by as many people as possible. I'm not fluent enough in German to translate it once and then translate it back myself, and if I did that, it would be a test of my talents as much as Babelfish's, so this was the best method I could choose.
And for the rest of us it's down to the coal mines, eh? Let me tell you about my experience. If you asked me at age 14, I would have told you that I had no chance in a computer science program. As a 14 year old boy I detested math, was annoyed with science, had no patience or attention to detail, and would rather have gone into an easier field. I stunted my own ambitions and sold myself short. If I were in the UK system, I'd probably be stuck in some dead-end job by now doing something I absolutely detested. Thankfully, since I'm treated like an adult with my own freedom to choose, I eventually found out in college that I can handle computer science, rather enjoy science and math, and as I've matured, I've discovered I have more patience, attention to detail, and will to succeed. Given the opportunity to learn these things about myself, I'm rather satisfied that I'll end up productive, happy, and probably even more useful to society. This happened, not because I was beaten about the head and shoulders with a gold-figurine-headed cane by some guy with a monocle, but because I had the opportunity and freedom to find out for myself.
Thank you, Benito Mussolini. You have possibly the single most depressing view of human potential I've ever seen. Tell me something, if it's unimportant how happy people are within a society, then what is the goal of the society? To serve the will of its unelected, hereditary leaders? To conquer a world-spanning empire? It's very hard to read your post without imagining you wearing either some ridiculous military uniform or a fashionable 19th-century suit with a monacle and handlebar mustache.
"Our offspring" are human beings, dammit. They don't exist to carry on some 19th-century industrial society you've set up for them. The day has long passed from when we send our sons down into the coal mines and our daughters off to marry the neighbor's son.
And I'll have you know that there are 20, 21, and 22 year old men entrusted with the lives of dozens others in our military even today, or with the fates of their own businesses and multi-million dollar fortunes earned by their own hand, but only by their choice and ambition.
The point I'm taking from Lord of the Flies is that children (particularly boys, if you want to consider that aspect of the work), left to their own devices, will devise the worst possible type of society and institutionalize their own brutality. This is exactly what happens in schools, during recess, etc.
Bah. This is physics--we gloss over those details.
Asians and Britons can train their children to become servants to "the greater good" of society as much as they want. But society is composed of individuals, and life is long enough that perhaps giving people more time to experiment and decide makes them happier with what they ultimately choose. I would prefer not to be trained from youth to face the world with a grim-faced sense of duty, and I'm sorry that you were.
Did you ever stop to realize that the "human interaction" is with other children? I don't think knowing how to survive in Lord of the Flies is anything we should be forced to learn, especially not the hard way.
Well, comparatively few people here speak German. Nonetheless, if it's an accurate translator, translating over and back again should introduce only twice as many translation errors as a single translation, so it's still a good measurement.
Or, as Babelfish would say (English to German and back:)
I am not safe, when this was written, but nowadays to have we of things as babelfish and that googles of language tools and Amikai (not a false spelling) the immediate translation rather well do. "Babelfish" is not based on Sterntrek however instead of on another piece of Sci FI, the leader of the trampers to the galaxy, which is filled even with ridiculously senseless things. Exists nevertheless babelfish now. The algorithms always improve. I do not see, why it is impossible to think that a daily we can add voice those algorithms and set the complete thing on a splinter with a small loudspeaker, that into your ear fits (I also do not see, problem of which NASAS with "standard frequencies" am - few the foreigner in the Sterntrek, which is in a vacuum phases, have her everything, those in connection with other sort to be and are normally part of or other galactic organizations. Non--reject only the made possible foreigners, those in a vacuum. Phases are)
If it could, it would do that not only to the guy who was shot, but also to the shooter. Well, assuming there were windows within 10 feet of both of them.