Actually, it's very nearly the same length. The original poster was claiming that the whole sentence was empty and should have been left out, and yet you're re-stating it in a minimal way (that doesn't indicate any communications skills at all beyond the ability to write technical documentation, a third purpose of the sentence) that's still around 5% of the total length of the essay requirement.
Interesting how a sentence that struck one reader as pointless turns out to be so important when you sit down and think about it in-context.
Yeah, she has said something. But it is redundant to state it in eight colorfully different ways. Every sentence in her essay is screaming "I'm aware of the world outside my chosen field, capable of ignoring rules and aware of consequences", yet not every sentence is necessary to convey this. To quote another in this thread, she could've written,
For concrete ways to downsize essays like hers, refer to the Elements of Style.
My favorite quote from the book,
Omit needless words. Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.
I liked my essay every bit as much as I remembered I did, so I thought I'd post it on here. I must say again, this is a piece I am awfully proud of... Word count: 447. Couldn't have done it in less.
Emphasis on the "Couldn't have done it in less."
Please. She starts her essay with a sentence reminiscent of a dark and stormy night,
The world I come from is full of oak trees and rain, warm cats on cold nights, and raucous college parties across the street.
And continues to non-inform us of anything but her ability to fill space,
The sky over my home matches the grey in my eyes; the barbed wire fence around Lake Sequoyah is commemorated eternally by the disfiguration of my left hip.
And she concludes her first paragraph with a phrase cleverly coined yet meaningless for all but one,
My world is eight friends in a bed meant for two, the hidden tunnels of the mall, and semi-weekly trips to ogle gadgets at Best Buy.
I could go on, but I've been terribly bored.
Her essay could easily have been summed up in 250 words. She has demonstrated that she can connect subjects and verbs and direct objects in an acceptably understandable way. Mission accomplished. But she certainly did not need a 500 word limit.
No, they just went to a population where HIV is already relatively common and a large number of people don't usually take adequate precautions against it (i.e. use condoms) and then studied the effects of the vaccine on that population's total infection rate over time.
How do you know? I RTFA, and I don't see it mention their procedures anywhere.
Are you sure they didn't expose these people to HIV as part of the trial? Then these statistics seem even more dubious, no?
I'm a bit confused. How do they conduct these trials and how do they make sure they are accurate?
If you don't consider the RSX family major operating systems, you're displaying your ignorance of computing history.
You've missed the point of my question entirely.
What defines major? A general consensus? Impact? Legacy? Longevity?
If impact, if legacy, then perhaps the RSX is the answer to the GGP's question. But for a minor OS to outlive what is being heralded as major, how can this be? Milestone, perhaps. Major? Maybe not.
Has there ever been a major OS that simply went away, period?
I think RSX-11, RT-11 and RSTS/E fit that. Some of the PDP operating systems are dead probably because they're still closed source otherwise I'm guessing hobbyists would still be maintaining them.
Well, I think the problem is in the question. Would you call it major if it did go away, period? I'd argue it wasn't major, at least not enough.
I think you're a troll, but I'll bite anyway. As someone who is fascinated with all things science related, I bemoan the total apathy towards science within the community. However, I feel that it is important to point out that it is not just science that is being neglected by the community; politics, philosophy, social conscience and other highly important fields have also been totally lost to the common mind.
See, but my questions is this. How come the apology is only extended to Alan Turing? Surely many more homosexuals were mistreated and subject to injustice during the laws of this period of time. Alan Turing gets a special apology, but did the rest? Do we only apologize to those of our society who 'contribute' or who are unique and special? Even the least of people deserve fair treatment, do they not?
starting with the Civil War, continuing with the economic war with the UK in the 1930s, going crazy in the 1970s even abolishing car tax to win votes as the country went bankrupt, deliberately facilitating a property bubble after the dot-com crash, attempting to have the taxpayers continue to pay into the Ponzi scheme with a unique Irish version of the bad bank - i.e. pay speculative amounts to banks for bad loans and attempt to keep prices up until a new bubble is created.
Why do I get the feeling that the people running Ireland (and America for that matter) couldn't keep their hands off the marshmallows?
As I understand it, the T1 and T2 chips both have on-chip crypto accelerators (one per core) already - what's the difference...?
Well, here it is as I understand. In T1, Arnold came back to terminate Sarah Connor and was unsuccessful. However in T2, Arnold was reprogrammed by future John Connor to defend his younger self. This cemented Arnold's historic status as both among humanity's greatest villains and greatest heroes of all time. And in California, because we love that stuff, these events ensured victory during his bid for power in the 2003 Governor Recall election.
"I couldn't help but say to him, just think how easy his task and mine might be in these meetings that we held, if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We'd forget all the little local differences we've had between our countries and we'd find out once and for all that we really are all human beings here on this earth together."
The first version of this I ever heard of was worn on the back. It worked. So the explanation in the article is either incorrect or misleading.
My suspicion is that the thing that's made this possible is the recent improvements in camera technology.
Rather than explaining away the article and summary as incorrect or misleading, we could consider the possibility that it simply works better on the tongue. Perhaps that's why this is being considered a breakthrough. Not improvements in camera technology, or the desire for doctors to stick lollipops (read this as you will) on the tongues of patients, but the discovery that the tongue is particularly good as sensory input for what is becoming pseudo-sight.
Sure, the resolution won't be as fine but it will be a lot less obtrusive to wear a sensor wrapped around your torso than to have something on your tongue with a wire sticking out of your mouth.
A practical version of that sensor net the blind lady wore on Star Trek back in the '60s will likely be on the market before 2067, assuming technology doesn't leapfrog it entirely.
From TFA:
The key to the device may be its utilization of the tongue, which seems to be an ideal organ for sensing electrical current. Saliva there functions as a good conductor, Seiple said. Also it might help that the tongue's nerve fibers are densely packaged and that these fibers are closer to the tongue's surface relative to other touch organs. (The surfaces of fingers, for example, are covered with a layer of dead cells called stratum corneum.)
Earlier this month, Apple rejected an application for the iPhone called Google Voice. The uproar set off a chain of eventsâ"Google's CEO Eric Schmidt resigning from Apple's board
I'm confused. I thought this was over a "conflict of interest."
It seems to me that you cannot make the implication that Apple rejecting an Google Voice set off the resignation of Eric Schmidt. More like, Google Voice exists and now that Google is directly competing with Apple, there is a conflict of interest forcing Eric Schmidt to resign from one or the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Little did they know, in 2013 we'd make a new internet.
Perhaps they should've been Buddhists?
If you have 60 women friends in 60 countries, it saves money.
You old dog, you. Utilizing the tried and true pigeon hole principle. Perfect metaphor for pimpin' women, I might add.
Actually, it's very nearly the same length. The original poster was claiming that the whole sentence was empty and should have been left out, and yet you're re-stating it in a minimal way (that doesn't indicate any communications skills at all beyond the ability to write technical documentation, a third purpose of the sentence) that's still around 5% of the total length of the essay requirement.
Interesting how a sentence that struck one reader as pointless turns out to be so important when you sit down and think about it in-context.
Yeah, she has said something. But it is redundant to state it in eight colorfully different ways. Every sentence in her essay is screaming "I'm aware of the world outside my chosen field, capable of ignoring rules and aware of consequences", yet not every sentence is necessary to convey this. To quote another in this thread, she could've written,
while dead_horse:
beat()
For concrete ways to downsize essays like hers, refer to the Elements of Style.
My favorite quote from the book,
Omit needless words. Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.
Honestly. She's not that good.
On her blog she writes,
I liked my essay every bit as much as I remembered I did, so I thought I'd post it on here. I must say again, this is a piece I am awfully proud of... Word count: 447. Couldn't have done it in less.
Emphasis on the "Couldn't have done it in less."
Please. She starts her essay with a sentence reminiscent of a dark and stormy night,
The world I come from is full of oak trees and rain, warm cats on cold nights, and raucous college parties across the street.
And continues to non-inform us of anything but her ability to fill space,
The sky over my home matches the grey in my eyes; the barbed wire fence around Lake Sequoyah is commemorated eternally by the disfiguration of my left hip.
And she concludes her first paragraph with a phrase cleverly coined yet meaningless for all but one,
My world is eight friends in a bed meant for two, the hidden tunnels of the mall, and semi-weekly trips to ogle gadgets at Best Buy.
I could go on, but I've been terribly bored.
Her essay could easily have been summed up in 250 words. She has demonstrated that she can connect subjects and verbs and direct objects in an acceptably understandable way. Mission accomplished. But she certainly did not need a 500 word limit.
I do believe that southwest is the only airline to not do a bankruptcy. All the rest file like clockwork it seems.
The reason is obvious, right?
Southwest has the best flight attendants in the air. :).
No, they just went to a population where HIV is already relatively common and a large number of people don't usually take adequate precautions against it (i.e. use condoms) and then studied the effects of the vaccine on that population's total infection rate over time.
How do you know? I RTFA, and I don't see it mention their procedures anywhere.
Are you sure they didn't expose these people to HIV as part of the trial? Then these statistics seem even more dubious, no?
I'm a bit confused. How do they conduct these trials and how do they make sure they are accurate?
If you don't consider the RSX family major operating systems, you're displaying your ignorance of computing history.
You've missed the point of my question entirely.
What defines major? A general consensus? Impact? Legacy? Longevity?
If impact, if legacy, then perhaps the RSX is the answer to the GGP's question. But for a minor OS to outlive what is being heralded as major, how can this be? Milestone, perhaps. Major? Maybe not.
What a nerd.
Have you seen his blog?
It's full of charts and graphs. Not ones like this. Real ones.
Why wouldn't you like something?
On facebook everyone likes you!
The data might still be there
Nope. The Mac Plus had no internal hard drive.
Oh, really? Then explain to me where they stored the formula for the transparent aluminum. On the invisible drive? Yeah, right, I'm not stupid.
Has there ever been a major OS that simply went away, period?
I think RSX-11, RT-11 and RSTS/E fit that. Some of the PDP operating systems are dead probably because they're still closed source otherwise I'm guessing hobbyists would still be maintaining them.
Well, I think the problem is in the question. Would you call it major if it did go away, period? I'd argue it wasn't major, at least not enough.
I think you're a troll, but I'll bite anyway. As someone who is fascinated with all things science related, I bemoan the total apathy towards science within the community. However, I feel that it is important to point out that it is not just science that is being neglected by the community; politics, philosophy, social conscience and other highly important fields have also been totally lost to the common mind.
The common mind.
Oxymoron? Irony? Paradox? I can't decide.
Or are you just going for the pun?
See, but my questions is this. How come the apology is only extended to Alan Turing? Surely many more homosexuals were mistreated and subject to injustice during the laws of this period of time. Alan Turing gets a special apology, but did the rest? Do we only apologize to those of our society who 'contribute' or who are unique and special? Even the least of people deserve fair treatment, do they not?
He's from Nepal.
Why do you think those Injuns were always scalpin people?
I watched Inglorious Basterds last night. Beautiful movie.
Maybe they needed solar power for their radios?
Too bad scalpin isn't a renewable source of energy.
I didn't know we are allowed to quote House episodes as scientific fact nowadays.
No, that's not very reliable. If you want a dependable source of science you cite the House Wiki or Scott's blog.
Oh, and Scott? He's just some Doctor Who happens to love House. :).
starting with the Civil War, continuing with the economic war with the UK in the 1930s, going crazy in the 1970s even abolishing car tax to win votes as the country went bankrupt, deliberately facilitating a property bubble after the dot-com crash, attempting to have the taxpayers continue to pay into the Ponzi scheme with a unique Irish version of the bad bank - i.e. pay speculative amounts to banks for bad loans and attempt to keep prices up until a new bubble is created.
Why do I get the feeling that the people running Ireland (and America for that matter) couldn't keep their hands off the marshmallows?
I hate when people mention amazing feats captured on video, which may or may not exist, and then force others to find them.
Let me fix that for you:
That's why I use IE for pr0n and mozilla for everything else.
As I understand it, the T1 and T2 chips both have on-chip crypto accelerators (one per core) already - what's the difference...?
Well, here it is as I understand. In T1, Arnold came back to terminate Sarah Connor and was unsuccessful. However in T2, Arnold was reprogrammed by future John Connor to defend his younger self. This cemented Arnold's historic status as both among humanity's greatest villains and greatest heroes of all time. And in California, because we love that stuff, these events ensured victory during his bid for power in the 2003 Governor Recall election.
In a speech to the UN, Reagan once said:
"I couldn't help but say to him, just think how easy his task and mine might be in these meetings that we held, if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We'd forget all the little local differences we've had between our countries and we'd find out once and for all that we really are all human beings here on this earth together."
I think not.
You'd be putting the tooth fairy out of business.
The first version of this I ever heard of was worn on the back. It worked. So the explanation in the article is either incorrect or misleading.
My suspicion is that the thing that's made this possible is the recent improvements in camera technology.
Rather than explaining away the article and summary as incorrect or misleading, we could consider the possibility that it simply works better on the tongue. Perhaps that's why this is being considered a breakthrough. Not improvements in camera technology, or the desire for doctors to stick lollipops (read this as you will) on the tongues of patients, but the discovery that the tongue is particularly good as sensory input for what is becoming pseudo-sight.
Sure, the resolution won't be as fine but it will be a lot less obtrusive to wear a sensor wrapped around your torso than to have something on your tongue with a wire sticking out of your mouth.
A practical version of that sensor net the blind lady wore on Star Trek back in the '60s will likely be on the market before 2067, assuming technology doesn't leapfrog it entirely.
From TFA:
The key to the device may be its utilization of the tongue, which seems to be an ideal organ for sensing electrical current. Saliva there functions as a good conductor, Seiple said. Also it might help that the tongue's nerve fibers are densely packaged and that these fibers are closer to the tongue's surface relative to other touch organs. (The surfaces of fingers, for example, are covered with a layer of dead cells called stratum corneum.)
From the article:
Earlier this month, Apple rejected an application for the iPhone called Google Voice. The uproar set off a chain of eventsâ"Google's CEO Eric Schmidt resigning from Apple's board
I'm confused. I thought this was over a "conflict of interest."
It seems to me that you cannot make the implication that Apple rejecting an Google Voice set off the resignation of Eric Schmidt. More like, Google Voice exists and now that Google is directly competing with Apple, there is a conflict of interest forcing Eric Schmidt to resign from one or the other.