There is psychological research (I'm sorry, I don't have the citation...if anyone can find it, let me know) out there on the ability of humans to learn by analogy. Humans are very good at making analogies, but often have trouble finding analogies and applying them to other problems. The experiment went something like the following:
1) Subjects were told a story about an army attacking a fortress. The main road to the fortress was too narrow to allow the passage of the entire army. However, there were several smaller roads leading out radially from the fortress. The general had the brilliant idea to divide his army into smaller groups and attack the fortress from multiple sides, thus winning the battle.
2) After some delay/distraction task, the subjects were presented with a problem: A patient is suffering from an inoperable tumor. The location of the tumor is such that the amount of radiation in the beam required to kill it would severely damage the other tissues in the radiation path. What should the doctor do?
correct answer: use several weaker beams centered on the tumor to create the same radiation at the tumor site (analogous to the army attacking the fortress).
the results:
1) without any instruction, almost none of the subjects correctly answered the problem
2) when the subjects were instructed to remember the fortress story because it might come in handy later, only *a few* answered the problem correcty
3) after being presented with the problem, if the subjects were instructed to "think back to that story. Is there anyway you could apply that to this problem?" many subjects responded correctly.
It seems that many people just aren't good at making that connection. You have to make it abundantly clear to them. "Intelligent" (perhaps "clever" is a better word) people might not know any more things than others, but may just be better at making these connections.
Managing director of Computer People Adam Fletcher said the best IT professionals will tailor their language to their audience, explaining themselves in layman's terms to ordinary office workers.
1) good idea. Ignorance of computer terms may be frustrating to those of us who use them fluently, but know-it-alls who overuse jargon (in any field) to appear smarter to novices are just assholes.
2) is Manging Director of Computer People Adam Fletcher's real job title? Is IT Director jargon?;)
I've never bought into the money = speech idea. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but why should person X have a louder voice than mine just because he/she has more money than I do?
Money facilitates speech to some extent, but isnt a direct form of speech. Your ability to stand on a soapbox and talk on the corner isnt limited by money. You can talk until you're tired or hoarse. It didnt cost a thing. Freedom of speech is not the same as a requirement to be heard by more people than you would otherwise normally be heard. Therefore, the idea that money as a speech enabling mechanism is a fallacy.
Using your practical soapbox example, if person X has more money I do, s/he might be able to afford a megaphone. Thus, due to money, person X is literally louder than I. This extends figuratively to the ability to produce slick commercials, get on talk shows, publish books, etc. So, everyone is allowed to talk until s/he's hoarse for free, but the ability to be heard costs.
You're right that money ~= speech, but money does correlate with exposure. The issue here is really hearing, rather than speech, because those with the most money get heard. I'd be surprised if any campaign finance law could limit your political speech if 1) no one paid you to say it, and 2) you didn't pay anyone to broadcast it.
I can't answer your question about how it looks on Linux, but I've found that on Windows and Mac it looks almost exactly the same (good, to me, but that's only personal taste). IMHO, It's the most customizable of any browser I've used, and the choice of skins has been more than satisfactory. I can set up the interface exactly how I want it, down to the smallest details.
If I buy a CD, and it becomes lost or damaged before I can make a copy, does it constitute a fair use for me to copy the same disc from my friend, or download the same songs to replace the ones that I paid for? Thoughts?
Finally, the information in a paper document is fundamentally symbolic in nature, and thus equivalent to the corresponding digital information. It is not analog, because the information is stored as sequences of a finite number of discrete patterns.
This doesn't hold true for music, movies or speech (which are not inherently digital) stored on CD, DVD, or other digital media. Written words, in a way, are a digital representation of speech/language, which falls somewhat between these notions of 'analog' and 'digital'. I won't go into a long philiosophical/linguistic ramble here. I just wanted to point that out.
Returning to the topic, I think that the voluntary indexing of these is a good thing, but I also hope no one gets the idea destroy real books. Books are cool.
The multi-search bar is nice, and you can also create your own searches, which can run from the address bar. For example "g whatever" does a google search, and you can create your own, like "wiki something" to do a wikipedia search, or whatever you like.
Even if you don't have a phone, a friend with a phone can still receive the registration code for you; it doesn't have to remain linked to the phone used, I don't believe.
>It does keep people who do not have cell phones from getting free email (yes those people exist, and are probably one of the people that NEED free email the most)
If you use the free version of the Opera browser, you can choose between generic graphic ads, and google targeted ads; in that case, you have google ads all the time.
to improve children's computer literacy is getting more computers in schools that don't have them (and where the parents can't afford to buy them). The problem with computer literacy in this country is not that these kids aren't getting laptops, but that those children whose families can't afford computers aren't being exposed to them in school, either.
Come to think of it, we might want to think about getting them up-to-date textbooks and safe buildings, first.
Slashdot Mirror
oops. My American ignorance is showing.
1) Subjects were told a story about an army attacking a fortress. The main road to the fortress was too narrow to allow the passage of the entire army. However, there were several smaller roads leading out radially from the fortress. The general had the brilliant idea to divide his army into smaller groups and attack the fortress from multiple sides, thus winning the battle.
2) After some delay/distraction task, the subjects were presented with a problem: A patient is suffering from an inoperable tumor. The location of the tumor is such that the amount of radiation in the beam required to kill it would severely damage the other tissues in the radiation path. What should the doctor do?
correct answer: use several weaker beams centered on the tumor to create the same radiation at the tumor site (analogous to the army attacking the fortress).
the results:
1) without any instruction, almost none of the subjects correctly answered the problem
2) when the subjects were instructed to remember the fortress story because it might come in handy later, only *a few* answered the problem correcty
3) after being presented with the problem, if the subjects were instructed to "think back to that story. Is there anyway you could apply that to this problem?" many subjects responded correctly.
It seems that many people just aren't good at making that connection. You have to make it abundantly clear to them. "Intelligent" (perhaps "clever" is a better word) people might not know any more things than others, but may just be better at making these connections.
1) good idea. Ignorance of computer terms may be frustrating to those of us who use them fluently, but know-it-alls who overuse jargon (in any field) to appear smarter to novices are just assholes.
2) is Manging Director of Computer People Adam Fletcher's real job title? Is IT Director jargon? ;)
Money facilitates speech to some extent, but isnt a direct form of speech. Your ability to stand on a soapbox and talk on the corner isnt limited by money. You can talk until you're tired or hoarse. It didnt cost a thing. Freedom of speech is not the same as a requirement to be heard by more people than you would otherwise normally be heard. Therefore, the idea that money as a speech enabling mechanism is a fallacy.
Using your practical soapbox example, if person X has more money I do, s/he might be able to afford a megaphone. Thus, due to money, person X is literally louder than I. This extends figuratively to the ability to produce slick commercials, get on talk shows, publish books, etc. So, everyone is allowed to talk until s/he's hoarse for free, but the ability to be heard costs.
You're right that money ~= speech, but money does correlate with exposure. The issue here is really hearing, rather than speech, because those with the most money get heard. I'd be surprised if any campaign finance law could limit your political speech if 1) no one paid you to say it, and 2) you didn't pay anyone to broadcast it.
Let's hope they define as clearly as they defined pornography: "I know it when I see it."
Make sure you have panels on, or toggled at the edge of the screen (Appearance:Panels). Open the panel, select bookmarks, drag away.
You can drag the address into the Bookmarks panel. You can also drag it into the Start bar (or any other bar), which I find to be useful.
I can't answer your question about how it looks on Linux, but I've found that on Windows and Mac it looks almost exactly the same (good, to me, but that's only personal taste). IMHO, It's the most customizable of any browser I've used, and the choice of skins has been more than satisfactory. I can set up the interface exactly how I want it, down to the smallest details.
If I buy a CD, and it becomes lost or damaged before I can make a copy, does it constitute a fair use for me to copy the same disc from my friend, or download the same songs to replace the ones that I paid for? Thoughts?
In a way, that could make it more realistic, as (I imagine) it's harder to aim whilst being chaingunned...
This doesn't hold true for music, movies or speech (which are not inherently digital) stored on CD, DVD, or other digital media. Written words, in a way, are a digital representation of speech/language, which falls somewhat between these notions of 'analog' and 'digital'. I won't go into a long philiosophical/linguistic ramble here. I just wanted to point that out.
Returning to the topic, I think that the voluntary indexing of these is a good thing, but I also hope no one gets the idea destroy real books. Books are cool.
The multi-search bar is nice, and you can also create your own searches, which can run from the address bar. For example "g whatever" does a google search, and you can create your own, like "wiki something" to do a wikipedia search, or whatever you like.
Did you go to Hollywood Upstairs Medical College, too?
Even if you don't have a phone, a friend with a phone can still receive the registration code for you; it doesn't have to remain linked to the phone used, I don't believe. >It does keep people who do not have cell phones from getting free email (yes those people exist, and are probably one of the people that NEED free email the most)
If you use the free version of the Opera browser, you can choose between generic graphic ads, and google targeted ads; in that case, you have google ads all the time.
to improve children's computer literacy is getting more computers in schools that don't have them (and where the parents can't afford to buy them). The problem with computer literacy in this country is not that these kids aren't getting laptops, but that those children whose families can't afford computers aren't being exposed to them in school, either. Come to think of it, we might want to think about getting them up-to-date textbooks and safe buildings, first.
This is bound to confuse everyone in Indiana, as well. http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&arti cle=UPI-1-20050719-14180600-bc-us-daylighttime.xml