Okey this is ridiculous!!!! First the guy who patches a software with Morse code and then this guy who would rather have a AMA with strange people before he dies. News flash people, there are actual human beings around you who you should talk to rather than computers or an anonymous crowd you do not know.
What amazes me about this comment is that you honestly do feel you are better to advise someone _how to best spend their time before they die_. This person has battled with cancer for 6 years, and has probably spent a countless amount of time thinking about this decision and how he chooses to spend his final time in the world. Do you not think he has a better educated and more heightened perspective on this issue?
And yet you still have the arrogant audacity to tell the world that what he feels is right is wrong.
Yes, every time I see a comment like this on some email list dismissing the value of internet relationships as not really real, I bite my tongue and resist the temptation to ask "then why are you here?"
Having spent a year at death's door, I can assure you that when you are physically unable to go out and get a life, the internet beats the hell out of laying in bed and staring at a blank wall (which I got so fucking sick of, I bought a screen to cover the damn wall and later put curtains over it so I wouldn't have to stare at the damn blank wall ever again).
A) How are phone calls "more real" than internet conversations?
B) Did you read the Reddit discussion you are criticizing? His handle is "Lucidending". He opted to go off medication in his final hours so he could be lucid and spend quality time with family before he checks out, something he was unable to do while completely fucked up on chemo and other drugs. He is spending his last hours with family and on the internet, the internet being a substitute for a physical world tour which he is physically unable to do.
> A) How are phone calls "more real" than internet conversations?
Bandwidth. While both are real -- thus making the phrase "more real" a bit awkward -- verbal communications transmit far more information than the words being spoken and I can't imagine the amount of typing it would take to convey the missing data. In that sense, it's "more" real.
Except that in some cases people exchange photos and other info online that you cannot exchange verbally. In the thread in question, the OP stated this was his "world tour" and folks posted links to photos, something you couldn't do by phone. You also couldn't have a phone conversation with multiple people in the same way. So I don't entirely agree. Different kinds of data can be shared. But it isn't necessarily "less" info, just different info.
Good point. I wasn't thinking of photo sharing and such in regards to "conversation"... in my mind I pictured plain text email/chat vs. phone call. By that measure, Facetime and Chat Roulette are internet conversations and greatly exceed what is possible via a phone call.
Voices have their good points. They convey a lot of emotion and such. On the other hand, I found that has a big downside as well, especially when dealing with something like a serious health crisis: People can't keep negative emotions out of their voices, emotions which can be unwelcome to the person in crisis. If you are dying and wanting to "get a life", not dealing with the emotions in someone's voice can be a benefit of being online. To me, it's not "more real" or "less real". It's just a different means to communicate, one with different strengths and weaknesses. It's better suited for some things, less well suited for others, but to me it is no less "real".
Actually, IIRC, he's already spent the time with his family and dismissed them. He wanted the last moments with them to be clear and lucid, this is more of an after activity while he goes through his final hours before dying. It was a lot to do with creating good memories for his relatives, not choosing strangers over family.
Everyone handles death and the idea of it differently .. maybe his ideas are short sighted. But down voting is a pretty evil thing to do in this situation, it doesn't make his opinion any; more or less valid than the next mans.
Perhaps it was a bit obnoxious :/ I guess I was just a little excited due to the coverage. Didn't really want to come off as flaunting it as such. Sorry if it came off that way, that's definitely not what I wanted to show
It was during half term holidays, so I didn't really have to worry about school. My mum trusts me enough to not bother complaining. She knows I'll get my work done. I'd never stay up that late on a school night.
I would certainly like a confirmation of this. If I remove a whole paragraph (like of acknowledgements or related research (which is already covered in the reference section)) does that mean that the paper is not owned by the journal? What if I make my own formatting and change the conclusion paragraph?
"As part of their retained rights, authors may revise their ACM-copyrighted work. If the new work is substantially developed, it is considered a new derivative work. The author owns the copyright in the new work and may do as she wishes with it. The author must incorporate a citation to the previous work with a notice ... If the work is a minor revision, copyright remains with ACM."
"The original copyright holder retains: [...] The right to post author-prepared versions of the work covered by ACM copyright in a personal collection on their own Home Page and on a publicly accessible server of their employer, and in a repository legally mandated by the agency funding the research on which the Work is based. Such posting is limited to noncommercial access and personal use by others, and must include this notice both embedded within the full text file and in the accompanying citation display as well:
I think what you are suggesting here is already being done. I don't have much experience but from what I hear you are required to submit a "Camera Ready" copy of your submission after you have been excepted. That would mean a well formatted and edited work.
People need to understand OCW and Khan Academy serve two very different purposes. OCW was made to make the awesome materials generated by MIT profs to the general public, while Khan Academy was made specifically for the purpose of giving personalised learning. In my view both of them are noble causes and non of them should be abandoned, you can teach very less material in 10 mins after you cross the K 12 level. For covering one lesson in at the undergraduate level you definitely need at least half an hour.
I read the thing and didn't understand the word of what the author is trying to say. Maybe I am fumbled up in vocabulary or something. Anyways, if any random person were to ask this to me I would definitely go for "good grades if you want to lead a happy peaceful life and smarts if you want to live like hell but have a shot at being happy as heaven".
I used a latex class to format one of my papers. At the final date of submission I found out they except only .doc format. I am still looking desperately for a latex2doc converter. Anyone here knows about this?
Under the assumption that the paper in question is being published in a journal, that might be a bad idea. In my experience, journals will typically take your content and then reformat it themselves to fit in whatever their constraints are (page size, number of columns, possibly starting in the middle of a page, etc, etc). For journals that take LaTeX submissions, they will generally just apply their house style file. For journals that take Word submissions, they will generally just apply their house Word style. For journals that accept either one... see above. ;)