Darren New wrote:

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

Still doesn't help unless you *recognise* which words need correcting. ;-)

>> 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.

Oh, sure, there are all mannar of spelling and grammatical errors which 
no machine will ever pick up on. This is why we have proof-reading. ;-) 
But given how hopeless I am at spelling, and automated spell-checker 
would be rather useful.

>> 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, I geuss so. Or because, you know, in reality you'd use a BST. ;-)

>> 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.

Mmm, OK.

>> 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.

Yeah, it really *is* designed for paper, not screen...

(This is why I use Indoculate. It will generate LaTeX or HTML without 
much effort.)

>> 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.

Yay! Encouragement! :-D

>> 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.

There's a story behind the three cavemen... which... I probably 
shouldn't go into... o_O

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

Hahahahaha!

Religion, you have been PWN3D.

>> 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.

You're seriously telling me I'm in the 95th percentile of the entire 
population in writing skills?

Even though I manifestly can't spell?

I didn't think I was *that* good... but then I guess I don't have 
anything to objectively compare to.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message