If twitter had 1000 users, it would be trivially simple to build. A weekend is a fair estimate. But the real challenge of twitter is doing this for millions of people and keeping it fast.
People limit pets' movement all the time. Dogs go on leashes or are stuck inside the house. Same with cats, often. We have 2 rabbits. They have to stay inside their pen when not accompanied by humans. Our tortoise has to stay inside its terrarium. Our fish may not swim in the ocean. I'm sure the rabbits would love to run around outside or even all over the house chewing on whatever they can, but it's not safe for them (predators, cars, electrocution), and it's not safe for our stuff. So maybe you're saying nobody should keep pets, but that's a different argument.
The game is a plugin. The point is that matchmaking and all non-gameplay related stuff is handled through the browser, which reduces the code and the amount of time between thinking "I'd like to play a game" and being in a server.
They'd have to work harder than their first semester either way. The point is that at a certain point (which was given as 20 percent), you'd have to get 100% on everything to even pass. Nobody is really expected to do 100%. Sure, some kids are able to do it, but it can't be an expectation. As for the comment about jobs that make minimum wage look like CEO pay compared to what they will be able to get, I suppose you could find work for under minimum wage, somewhere, but it's minimum for a reason. Even mentally handicapped people can get jobs if they want them, minimum wage or otherwise. But as for coddling resulting in people being unable to do basic math or read well, it's possible, but I don't think this is the same thing. This will still be failing people who can't read. This still fails people who can't do math. It only rewards people who pick things up, meaning that they *did* learn the necessary skills, but a bit late.
An F is an F, (or an E is an E, according to the article). They still show as failing, they still fail, but now they actually have a chance to start trying. If you were in a class and had gotten 10% or something ridiculous like that, then you got your life together, decided to start trying in school and catching up, how would it be to be unable to pass the class because you'd average less than 60%? These kids won't pass unless they actually do the work. It doesn't take anything away from the smarter or harder working kids. It gives the kids who had a bad time at first a way to fix it in the second semester. They'd still have to get 70% to get a 60% overall. All it says is that it is now possible to pass a class, even if you did poorly the first semester. Is it possible to get an A? No. B? No. The max they can get is 75% (unless they get over 100% in the second semester, but that's a stretch). Nobody is going to be getting into great schools with grades like that, so it doesn't take any college spots away from the harder working kids, but it lets kids at least get their diploma. They can learn from their mistakes, and if they work hard to correct them, they can turn around. Sure, there are situations in Real Life where that can't happen, but come on, this is high school! We either give them a chance to turn around now, or we end up with yet another idiot in the Real World who can't do high school math or read above an 8th grade level.
I agree that SMS and even, to an extent, hinders long, thoughtful statements and responses. I also agree that as far as bandwidth goes, your hierarchy is pretty much correct. However, I think that raw bandwidth isn't what we're looking for in IM. Also, a book takes a whole lot of time to write, and a tiny fraction of that time to read, meaning that once it is written, it can be a very quick way of getting information to a lot of people, but the actual writing process means that that same information could likely be conveyed to a single person or small group of people much quicker.
Also, a book is only a one-way communication, and IM is rarely used for that. A Lecture could be a two-way communication (via questions and answers) but remains a largely one-way communication system.
I'd put an in-person conversation above email or letters, since for letters/emails, the message has to be written in full, which is slower than speaking, then sent, then read in full, which is faster than listening. For in-person conversation, the sending and receiving is simultaneous, and at the speed of speech, which is, on average, 225 wpm, I believe. You're unlikely to find a typist above 120 wpm, but they are around. (Probably more, here, since we're all into computers).
Telephone communication still goes above email, for the same reason, but under in-person conversation. Also, voice carries some information that the words spoken do not (largely emotional indicators).
The advantage of IM that I see that from time of message sent to message received is second only to voice/in-person communication. The reason people use IM, though, is that it can be backgrounded much more easily than a voice-conversation. Additionally, one can have several independent conversations over IM, but only one at a time with almost every other medium. (You can write multiple letters at a time, I guess, but that's not as normal, I think.) The fact that it encourages small messages is, in my eyes, an indication that it is the closest to a text-based form of a voice conversation. Sure, it's possible to read a book faster, or to listen to someone talk faster, but is it reasonable to read 5 books or listen to 5 people speak at the same time? That same task can be easily accomplished with IM. But yeah, as you say, it doesn't necessarily work for long thoughts as well.
As far as SMS goes, well. It's easily accessible nearly anywhere, but that's about all it's got going for it. Oh well. My phone has no qwerty keyboard, so I can type a message at maybe 4 or 5 wpm. Oh well.
You know, you don't have to type short phrases, but doing so means that the other person in the conversation will be able to respond more quickly, once you've completed your thought.
idiom noun 1 a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words (e.g., rain cats and dogs, see the light).
a form of expression natural to a language, person, or group of people : he had a feeling for phrase and idiom.
the dialect of a people or part of a country. 2 a characteristic mode of expression in music or art : they were both working in a neo-Impressionist idiom.
literally adverb in a literal manner or sense; exactly : the driver took it literally when asked to go straight across the traffic circle | tiramisu, literally translated "pick me up."
informal used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true : I have received literally thousands of letters. USAGE In its standard use, literally means 'in a literal sense, as opposed to a nonliteral or exaggerated sense,': : I told him I never wanted to see him again, but I didn't expect him to take it literally . In recent years, an extended use of literally (and also literal) has become very common, where literally (or literal) is used deliberately in nonliteral contexts, for added effect: : they bought the car and literally ran it into the ground. This use can lead to unintentional humorous effects ( : we were literally killing ourselves laughing) and is not acceptable in formal English.
While you could make the case that this is not formal English, you can't use a word like literally to mean exactly the opposite of what it means, unless you're being sarcastic, which you're not. Raining cats and dogs is a pretty silly phrase, word for word, but that's what makes it an idiom. Calling something an idiom doesn't make incorrect English into correct English.
I mean really, look up literal in a thesaurus. It will show "figurative" as an (possibly the only) antonym. You can use a word to mean its antonym if you're being sarcastic, but that is not what you were being.
Slashdot Mirror
Lol the bus on the 405.
They want to prevent arctic drilling, not general vehicle use. They're not saying people should never use oil.
If twitter had 1000 users, it would be trivially simple to build. A weekend is a fair estimate. But the real challenge of twitter is doing this for millions of people and keeping it fast.
When you play chess, you either win, or you lose.
You can also draw.
He didn't say a single corner of a room. He said his house. That's probably big enough to not be too bored, even for a relatively intelligent bird.
People limit pets' movement all the time. Dogs go on leashes or are stuck inside the house. Same with cats, often. We have 2 rabbits. They have to stay inside their pen when not accompanied by humans. Our tortoise has to stay inside its terrarium. Our fish may not swim in the ocean. I'm sure the rabbits would love to run around outside or even all over the house chewing on whatever they can, but it's not safe for them (predators, cars, electrocution), and it's not safe for our stuff. So maybe you're saying nobody should keep pets, but that's a different argument.
The Apple Store.
I know! Babies are so DUMB!
You can't talk to Professor Obvious like that! Guy's got his PhD and everything! What've you got! No respect, the kids these days!
special effects
plural noun
illusions created for movies and television by props, camerawork, computer graphics, etc.
Source: New Oxford American Dictionary
Perhaps a watch that kept time more accurately would have been nice. 15 minutes off is pretty bad.
Yeah!
The game is a plugin. The point is that matchmaking and all non-gameplay related stuff is handled through the browser, which reduces the code and the amount of time between thinking "I'd like to play a game" and being in a server.
Good 'ole Jack. ' could be... assh? guacam?
My home server is called Jose, just because I don't know anyone named Jose. My old PC was Lando. Laptop: MaxximumLazer.
They'd have to work harder than their first semester either way. The point is that at a certain point (which was given as 20 percent), you'd have to get 100% on everything to even pass. Nobody is really expected to do 100%. Sure, some kids are able to do it, but it can't be an expectation. As for the comment about jobs that make minimum wage look like CEO pay compared to what they will be able to get, I suppose you could find work for under minimum wage, somewhere, but it's minimum for a reason. Even mentally handicapped people can get jobs if they want them, minimum wage or otherwise. But as for coddling resulting in people being unable to do basic math or read well, it's possible, but I don't think this is the same thing. This will still be failing people who can't read. This still fails people who can't do math. It only rewards people who pick things up, meaning that they *did* learn the necessary skills, but a bit late.
An F is an F, (or an E is an E, according to the article). They still show as failing, they still fail, but now they actually have a chance to start trying. If you were in a class and had gotten 10% or something ridiculous like that, then you got your life together, decided to start trying in school and catching up, how would it be to be unable to pass the class because you'd average less than 60%? These kids won't pass unless they actually do the work. It doesn't take anything away from the smarter or harder working kids. It gives the kids who had a bad time at first a way to fix it in the second semester. They'd still have to get 70% to get a 60% overall. All it says is that it is now possible to pass a class, even if you did poorly the first semester. Is it possible to get an A? No. B? No. The max they can get is 75% (unless they get over 100% in the second semester, but that's a stretch). Nobody is going to be getting into great schools with grades like that, so it doesn't take any college spots away from the harder working kids, but it lets kids at least get their diploma. They can learn from their mistakes, and if they work hard to correct them, they can turn around. Sure, there are situations in Real Life where that can't happen, but come on, this is high school! We either give them a chance to turn around now, or we end up with yet another idiot in the Real World who can't do high school math or read above an 8th grade level.
Did you even read what he wrote? He was for keeping it in wikipedia.
Man, that Konfabulator vs Dashboard thing again? Didn't we already decide that Apple did it first? Like, 20 years ago?
1. Download movie for free
2. Keep movie forever
3. There is no step three.
I agree that SMS and even, to an extent, hinders long, thoughtful statements and responses. I also agree that as far as bandwidth goes, your hierarchy is pretty much correct. However, I think that raw bandwidth isn't what we're looking for in IM. Also, a book takes a whole lot of time to write, and a tiny fraction of that time to read, meaning that once it is written, it can be a very quick way of getting information to a lot of people, but the actual writing process means that that same information could likely be conveyed to a single person or small group of people much quicker.
Also, a book is only a one-way communication, and IM is rarely used for that. A Lecture could be a two-way communication (via questions and answers) but remains a largely one-way communication system.
I'd put an in-person conversation above email or letters, since for letters/emails, the message has to be written in full, which is slower than speaking, then sent, then read in full, which is faster than listening. For in-person conversation, the sending and receiving is simultaneous, and at the speed of speech, which is, on average, 225 wpm, I believe. You're unlikely to find a typist above 120 wpm, but they are around. (Probably more, here, since we're all into computers).
Telephone communication still goes above email, for the same reason, but under in-person conversation. Also, voice carries some information that the words spoken do not (largely emotional indicators).
The advantage of IM that I see that from time of message sent to message received is second only to voice/in-person communication. The reason people use IM, though, is that it can be backgrounded much more easily than a voice-conversation. Additionally, one can have several independent conversations over IM, but only one at a time with almost every other medium. (You can write multiple letters at a time, I guess, but that's not as normal, I think.) The fact that it encourages small messages is, in my eyes, an indication that it is the closest to a text-based form of a voice conversation. Sure, it's possible to read a book faster, or to listen to someone talk faster, but is it reasonable to read 5 books or listen to 5 people speak at the same time? That same task can be easily accomplished with IM. But yeah, as you say, it doesn't necessarily work for long thoughts as well.
As far as SMS goes, well. It's easily accessible nearly anywhere, but that's about all it's got going for it. Oh well. My phone has no qwerty keyboard, so I can type a message at maybe 4 or 5 wpm. Oh well.
You know, you don't have to type short phrases, but doing so means that the other person in the conversation will be able to respond more quickly, once you've completed your thought.
Actually, they orbit their shared center-of-mass, but I know what you mean.
idiom
noun
1 a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words (e.g., rain cats and dogs, see the light).
a form of expression natural to a language, person, or group of people : he had a feeling for phrase and idiom.
the dialect of a people or part of a country.
2 a characteristic mode of expression in music or art : they were both working in a neo-Impressionist idiom.
literally
adverb
in a literal manner or sense; exactly : the driver took it literally when asked to go straight across the traffic circle | tiramisu, literally translated "pick me up."
informal used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true : I have received literally thousands of letters.
USAGE In its standard use, literally means 'in a literal sense, as opposed to a nonliteral or exaggerated sense,': : I told him I never wanted to see him again, but I didn't expect him to take it literally . In recent years, an extended use of literally (and also literal) has become very common, where literally (or literal) is used deliberately in nonliteral contexts, for added effect: : they bought the car and literally ran it into the ground. This use can lead to unintentional humorous effects ( : we were literally killing ourselves laughing) and is not acceptable in formal English.
While you could make the case that this is not formal English, you can't use a word like literally to mean exactly the opposite of what it means, unless you're being sarcastic, which you're not. Raining cats and dogs is a pretty silly phrase, word for word, but that's what makes it an idiom. Calling something an idiom doesn't make incorrect English into correct English.
I mean really, look up literal in a thesaurus. It will show "figurative" as an (possibly the only) antonym. You can use a word to mean its antonym if you're being sarcastic, but that is not what you were being.
What about the other 10%? Statistical error?