michael_dorfman
Joined 18 years ago
Karma
10,764
Submissions
2,372
Member since
Apr 15
Recent submissions
Comment · 13 years ago
Comment · 13 years ago
> Please read about the alphabet system of Sanskrit and various modern languages that derives from Sanskrit
The Sanskrit alphabet is very elegant indeed, but Sanskrit doesn't have a writing system. None of the various scripts used to encode Sanskrit (Siddham, Lantsa, Devanagari, Kharoshti etc.) are, in my opinion, anywhere near as well-structured as the Sanskrit alphabet.
>In addition to that, sanskrit alphabets encompasses almost every possible consonant and vowel sounds that a human can generate.
That's nowhere near true; listen to some languages like Xhosa, or even a tonal language like Chinese, and try to transliterate them using Sanskrit.
>Sanskrit grammar is again another beautiful and well thought creation that is considered the best grammar to be used for scientific work.
Sanskrit grammar is highly regular, which is why it is used in some AI applications, but there's no reason to think it is "the best grammar to be used for scientific work." And, as structured as Sanskrit grammar is, it still opens itself up to ambiguities-- it is nowhere near as clean as an artificial language would be.
Sanskrit is a great language, but there's no need to oversell it.
Comment · 13 years ago
I worked in an IT department of about 20, of which two employees had each been hit twice.
Comment · 13 years ago
It's a reference to a famous quote by Sweden's trade minister in 1999, who said "Norway is the last Soviet State"
Comment · 14 years ago
If a headline is phrased as a question, the answer is always "no." If the answer were "yes", they wouldn't have phrased it as a question.
Comment · 14 years ago
But his paper “On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem” (the one that gave the world the Turing Machine) has a bug in it. In fact, it has two. The first is obvious enough that I spotted it when i read the paper for the first time. The second bug is rather more subtle (but still fixable. It’s okay, the field of computing is not build on sand).
I'd love to see the identification of these-- it seems quite perverse to mention them in a blog posting without at least a footnote giving the details.
Comment · 14 years ago
See the FAQ (http://ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)
Comment · 14 years ago
And, actually, last week was the 1144th anniversary of the printing of the oldest book for which we have a precise date:
Comment · 14 years ago
Someone has to explain to me exactly what we should have done differently here.
I'll give it a shot. What you should have done, in my opinion, is just provide a link alongside a one-line summary, along the lines of "Here's an article we found fascinating."
If the article you are writing is based on a single source, it's not an article-- it's a paraphrase.
We work immensely had to product original content as well as link to original sources when deserved...this case was absolutely no different.
so, which was this? It was more than a link, but it surely doesn't qualify as "original content" by any stretch of the imagination.
Comment · 14 years ago
Yes, but Bill Evans did the arrangements on Kind of Blue; he is also rumoured to have composed several of the songs (although they are credited to Miles.)
Comment · 14 years ago
No; Bill Evans and Gil Evans are two different people (and both collaborated with Miles.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Evans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Evans
Comment · 14 years ago
Wow, you sure did this wrong. A post like this is going to be aggressively ignored, I imagine. If, on the other hand, you had written a solid blog post about what you've done, and what you've learned doing it, you would have likely gone to the front page, and garnered a lot of attention for yourself (and goodwill from the friendly denizens here.)
(Lather. Rinse. Repeat.)