 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:53:28 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 31/01/2011 9:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:55:28 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>>> Send only $9.99 for the Jim Henderson "How to improve your life
>>>>> skills" tutorial. :-P
>>>>
>>>> Don't even joke about that crap - there's serious money to be made
>>>> here!
>>>
>>>
> Those that do, do.
> Those that can't, joke ;-)
>
>>> Not by me! :-(
>>
>> Nor me, I'm not smart enough to monetize it. :-)
>>
>>
> You mean that you can't make money from it? <gd&rvvf>
Indeed, we said the same thing. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/01/2011 10:27 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:53:28 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 31/01/2011 9:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:55:28 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Send only $9.99 for the Jim Henderson "How to improve your life
>>>>>> skills" tutorial. :-P
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't even joke about that crap - there's serious money to be made
>>>>> here!
>>>>
>>>>
>> Those that do, do.
>> Those that can't, joke ;-)
>>
>>>> Not by me! :-(
>>>
>>> Nor me, I'm not smart enough to monetize it. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> You mean that you can't make money from it?<gd&rvvf>
>
> Indeed, we said the same thing. ;-)
>
If you say so. O_O
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:36:16 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>> You mean that you can't make money from it?<gd&rvvf>
>>
>> Indeed, we said the same thing. ;-)
>>
>>
> If you say so. O_O
I don't, but the Oxford English Dictionary does, with the earliest usage
they document coming from 1867.
Definition 1.b.:
To convert (an asset, debt, etc.) into money, to realize the value of (an
asset, debt, etc.) as currency; spec. to convert (government debt) to a
more liquid form, as by redeeming Treasury bills or replacing bonds with
bills. Also: to assess in terms of monetary value.
:-P
(It's your dictionary, not mine <g>)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/02/2011 12:39 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> (It's your dictionary, not mine<g>)
In which part of Scotland does Oxford lie?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:44:23 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 01/02/2011 12:39 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> (It's your dictionary, not mine<g>)
>
> In which part of Scotland does Oxford lie?
Hmmm, that's a fair question. I'm tempted to say "the British part", but
even then quite literally, the only place the Oxford University colleges
are at is actually in Oxford.
So perhaps instead I should have said "It's an English word and usage,
defined by what is arguably referred to as the definitive English
dictionary these days". ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/31/2011 12:08 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Trouble is, I write the outline, start writing the body text, and then
>> discover that this is actually a bad order, due to some dependency I
>> hadn't thought of.
>
> Then you stop writing and you go back and fix the outline. It means your
> outline wasn't detailed enough to start with.
>
>>>> Writing a page or two isn't too hard. (Parsec, anyone?) Writing
>>>> something that's 30 pages long is another matter.
>>>
>>> It's the same process.
>>
>> Not really. I mean, if you write something that doesn't completely
>> make sense until two paragraphs later, most people will accept that.
>> If you write something in chapter 2 that doesn't really make sense
>> until chapter 17... not good.
>
> Memento. Inception. Any suspense movie you care to name. ;-)
>
> I know what you mean, tho. I'm just teasing.
>
> What you need to learn is what's called "lies to children." You give
> just enough information to make chapter 2 make sense, even if that's
> wrong information. Then in chapter 17, you say "remember what I told you
> back in chapter 2? Well, you have to adjust it to account for this."
>
Mind, one needs to be careful with the "lies to children" approach. As a
common practice it can often lead to underestimating the child (or
adult, as the case may be), by assuming they are not going to understand
it, and only manages to prove instead that you are the dumb one.
Information can be simplified, and it made clear that it is being
simplified, so its understandable at that point, without necessarily
giving out "wrong information", which will either a) be the last thing
they bother reading on the subject, b) confuse them later, when they do
read the real explanation, or c) lead to misinterpretation of other
things, that *appear* to be related, based on the false explanation.
We especially need to avoid too many more people in public
service/office with affliction (a). lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I spent quite a long time doing that with digital filter design.
>> Eventually I gave up due to the sheer intractability of finding anything
>> remotely useful. (Fortunately, many years later I finally stumbled upon
>> a very good resource by accident...)
>
> The trick is to train yourself to do so intentionally so finding the
> right resource isn't accidental. Do you have a local library?
Oh, the *library* doesn't contain any technical books. Trying to find
anything there beyond GCSE level is a waste of time. You couldn't even
find a book on integral calculus, much less something advanced like
digital filter design.
>>> You need to learn to do this iteration rather than giving up after
>>> round 1 so frequently. You did it with your dancing classes, so apply
>>> that to other areas in your life. :)
>>
>> Uh, I went to *one* dance school, and I'm still there. Not a great
>> analogy. :-P
>
> Actually, it's an excellent analogy, because you determined:
>
> 1. You wanted to learn to dance
> 2. You identified someplace that could help you do so
> 3. You identified the class(es) that you were most interested in
> 4. You went to class and learned
> 5. YOU KEPT AT IT
> 6. You are continuing to refine your skills by still going to class
>
> It's a perfect example of the iterative process of learning, because
> you've gone through many iterations.
I asked my sister which school I should go to and what class to take.
After that, I kept going because I was addicted. There wasn't a whole
lot of effort involved. (Other than the effort of remaining upright.
Have *you* tried dancing the Waltz? It's way harder than you'd think...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Perhaps I'm just too much of a perfectionist then.
>
> That is common for people in technical fields - so you're not alone.
Let's face it, usually the reason I write something is that somebody
else has written it, badly, and I want to do better. (Anyone here read
Real World Haskell? For such a hyped book, written by well-known experts
of the field... it's not actually that good!)
>>> Then that's not actually a mindmap.
>>
>> Well, OK, I don't know what the precise term is, but I drew a chart of
>> all the topics I wanted to talk about and which ones are interrelated.
>> You know what? *EVERYTHING* is interrelated!>_<
>
> That's a start. Problem is that nobody really teaches how to use them
> effectively, certainly not in the US schools. I would've done much
> better in school if I'd been taught how to use that as a way of taking
> effective notes, for example.
Or maybe it's just that "Haskell" is a really *huge* subject...
>> OK. Well maybe I'll try again with something slightly less insane...
>
> That's the way to do it, start with something simple, and work up to the
> larger projects. You wouldn't try to play Beethoven's 9th Symphony on
> the violin without first working through Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, so
> don't try to do a symphony your first time out writing.
Didn't Mozart write Twinkle Twinkle Little Star at the age of 6?
>> I still remember the "research training" we did at university. This
>> consisted of knowing where the library keep the various documents they
>> hold. No indication of how you figure out what documents exist or which
>> ones might be useful or...
>
> That sounds about as useful as a class my stepson has just audited - he's
> in his 4th year (of 4) at Uni here, and one course he hadn't taken
> because his schedule didn't fit it was "how to use the library" (I'm not
> kidding about this).
Well, that's really all that our research training was. It's not about
how to research, it's about how to use the library. It was even given by
one of the library staff. No indication of what is *in* these documents
or anything, just "they're on shelf 5B".
> For me, though, it comes down to the word association game
When searching with Google, I never know whether I'm just using the
wrong search term, or whether the document I'm searching for actually
doesn't exist. I rather suspect it's almost always the latter. (Except
that every now and then, Darren will pop up and write an almost
identical search term and it comes back with useful data...)
> So I guess the other part is learning how to break a complex topic down
> into manageable pieces. That's also a learnable skill, and not something
> that anyone innately knows how to do.
Oh, I think I've got that down. It's putting the pieces back together
into a coherent whole that I don't do well.
Ask me "how does pattern matching work in Haskell?" and I can write
about that. Ask me "how do you optimise performance?" and I can write
about that too. Ask me "how does type unification work?" and I can do
that too. Ask me "how do I write a program in Haskell?" and I go into a
redraft spiral from which there is no escape...
Each individual concept isn't too difficult to explain. Trying to figure
out the best order in which to explain all of them is maddeningly difficult.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/02/2011 9:48 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Have *you* tried dancing the Waltz? It's way harder than you'd think...
That was the sort of thing I was taught at primary school along with The
Dashing White Sergeant, the Pride of Erin Waltz and that old favourite
the Gay Gordons.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Have *you* tried dancing the Waltz? It's way harder than you'd think...
>
> That was the sort of thing I was taught at primary school along with The
> Dashing White Sergeant, the Pride of Erin Waltz and that old favourite
> the Gay Gordons.
I did Country Dancing at school. Perhaps unsurprisingly, when you're 5
years old, running around hoping and jumping for 20 minutes isn't
especially demanding.
10 years of being told to "sit still and be quiet" later, and walking to
the shops is somewhat demanding...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
