Actually, the usability test pretty much replicated my experience with Unity. The dock was fine, but the way it folded was awkward. I wasn't sure what the Ubuntu menu did either and I eventually got sick of never being able to find system settings and the really unhelpful search and switched to Xubuntu. I was reading this usability test and going "...And they went ahead with it!!??"
Well it's essentially the same problem for actions. The dream appeals to many, but the work is only available for a smaller number. The result is a lot of struggling actors competing for the same work. The same goes for the vast array of courses in translation, film-making, forensic science, creative writing, game design or any number of appealing careers. There are always going to be more people wanting to do these jobs than there are positions available and educational institutions have no problem taking their money.
The problem is that a university degree has more prestige that a technical school. So employers use it as a measure of the ability of the people they are hiring, and then complain that their new hires don't have enough practical skills. So the technical schools become universities and start offering degrees in tourism, IT management, and financial planning.
"These are civil liberties that our forefathers fought, bled, and died to give us."
The poster is Swedish. Sweden's last war was fought in 1814 to occupy Norway. Before that it fought in the coalition against Napoleon so that it could demand Norway in the peace settlement. Previous to that Sweden fought in the Great Northern War of 1700-1721 to maintain and extend its Baltic empire and in the 30 Years War to defend Protestantism in Germany and to seize the basis for said empire.
I suggest that the existence of civil liberties and democracy in Sweden has more to do with peaceful activism and good government that with bloodshed and violent struggle.
Sweden is also an intrinsic part of Western Civilisation. People in other western countries have fought many wars, and many civil rights battles -- both violent and non-violent -- over the last two centuries, to get where we are today.
> the existence of civil liberties and democracy in Sweden has more to do with peaceful activism and good government that with bloodshed and violent struggle
Both have their place; it's a question of whatever tactics win in a given situation. To use a modern example, the Egyptian people were able to overthrow their dictator with a good deal less bloodshed than the Libyan people are.
I suggest that the existence of civil liberties in many countries has to do with the example set by the American war of independence, and the French revolution (which was itself inspired by the other one).
This rings true for me. Certainly the courses I struggled in were ones where I had a hard time getting a grip on the concepts. The best lecturers helped by teaching in a way that made the key concepts clear and showed how they developed from previous concepts taught.
Really, I always found it pretty useful. I guess this might be because when doing J->E translation I already had context from the source text. Still the WWWJDIC results at least link to ALC (which does give lots of context) or to Japanese Wikipedia entries (which can compare to the English version of the same article)
Thanks for the link! Somehow I'd never come across that site before (I guess because I've got a good densi jisyo. The only times I check out words online is when I want more context; in which case I go to the Japanese Wikipedia).
The question left open, though, is whether that's the word reporters normally would use. It's not clear in the examples whether or not the word is being used hyperbolically. I mean, just because you can say "Muhammad Ali annihilated his opponent" doesn't mean that "annihilate" is a synonym for "defeat".
Yes, but he hesitated to say this was sufficient and said the reactors were still "a little more susceptible to an accident that would result in a loss of containment".
The qualitative assessment of the plant's design is outside the scope of what I'm commenting on. I'm referring to the journalistic bait-and-switch which hides a very relevant piece of information (that contradicts the implied assertion of the title) on page two of a banner-encrusted site.
In the context of current events, the title of the link suggests some kind of spectacular negligence.
At the point where the scientist says the design flaws were addressed, [his resignation due to design flaws] is no longer a story that adds anything relevant or noteworthy to the discussion. It's merely a historical fact disconnected from current events.
If the title of the article had followed the content and been focused on the expert sharing their knowledge and discussing possible problems with the design I would have appreciated it much more.
