Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Heh. Some people are all like "hey, strictly speaking a 'byte' isn't 
> always 8 bits!" I mean, LIKE IT MATTERS HERE! Think of your audience, 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children

> If I had a way to check these [easily] it would probably help a lot...

Google:
   define:plover

>> There are also a few correctly-spelled words that are just the wrong 
>> choice of word. (E.g., Insert sort: "One of the lowest sorts.")
> 
> That's not even a spelling mistake; I merely didn't hit the S-key hard 
> enough. ;-)

Yes. But the spell checker wouldn't catch it, is my point.

>> In the "linked list", I'd not use the term pointer.
> 
> The term seems fairly natural to me. But then, I've been using it for 
> well over a decade. Maybe I'll just expand on it a little. (Diagrams 
> would *really* help here!)

Yeah. Explain what a pointer is, like an address on the side of a mailbox 
being referenced by the address on an envelope or something.

>> Typo: "We'll see what that might be useful later." (You mean "We'll 
>> see how...")
> 
> Yeah. When you type lots of stuff, it's surprisingly easy to substitute 
> high-frequency words such as "how", "what", "when", "that", etc. 
> Sometimes it results in sentences that clearly don't make sense...

Yes. I'm just helping you fix them, you see. :-)

> Ooo... I never actually thought of that!

It's surprisingly non-obvious, for some reason. Probably because you'd never 
do this with physical objects.

> Yeah, it does feel like it says a whole crapload of stuff, and then 
> just... ends. I'm not really sure what a sensible ending would be though.

"""
So, as you can see, even though computers are very fast, the quantities of 
information they deal with are also vast. To access information in memory or 
on a disk sometimes requires special techniques in order to be fast enough. 
This paper has introduced you to some of those techniques.
"""

Just something like that. The abstract, written backwards.

> But yeah, I suppose it does look a little strange. I don't plan on 
> fiddling with TeX's defaults to change it though.

Your call, of course. It's just bothersome to read on screen that way, 
without zooming into the middle third of the paper.

> I consider myself to be very *good* at explaining stuff in simple terms. 
> As I've said, the key is figuring out what's important and what isn't. 

It shows, yes.

> When I'm bored, I often sit by myself and have imaginary conversations 
> with nonexistant people, tellin them all about... any stuff I know 
> about, really. 

Heh. You too? I usually don't get to cavemen, but other ideas.

> Come to think of it, as long as I can remember, ever since I was a very 
> small child, I've *always* talked to imaginary people.
> 
> ...shit, I should probably have had *FREINDS* instead! o_O

Go to church. Then you can talk to imaginary people *and* meet friends.

> I spent about 3 hours writing it on Wednesday. Today I corrected a 
> handful of typos, and added the final few paragraphs. I can't have spent 
> more than an hour doing that.

That's very impressive. Understand that 95% of the population couldn't write 
something this good about something they know well, let alone doing it in 
one or two sittings.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message