Journal Daniel Dvorkin's Journal: Oh, this is brilliant. 2
I'm not going to say I agree completely with all the arguments herein, but it nonetheless ought to be required reading for anyone (and particularly, yes, for white men) who is considering jumping into discussions about race, sex, religion, and other Sensitive Subjects. It strikes me as being akin to lists of common logical fallacies -- not at all (a large number of Slashdotters to the contrary) the be-all and end-all of understanding how to have a good debate, but an incredibly useful tool for understanding the basics of how not to make yourself look like a fool.
happier holidays (Score:2)
That's a good one. I especially like "You're Being Oversensitive", as if one can know exactly the right portion of sensitivity another should have. As always, your journal contribution is worthy of contemplation and useful.
Say, Daniel, I was just thinking about you. I'm helping my wife with a math paper she's writing with a Romanian pure mathematician and a Chinese applied mathematician. None of them know how to use an article (a, the, an). Apparently, we use a ridiculous number of them in our speech
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's what we call it. The idea is that you have some measurements which are continuous (real numbers) and some which are discrete (say, integers) and when it's convenient, you discretize the former to get the latter. An example is "rounding off," such as rounding a price given in dollars and cents to the nearest whole dollar, or ten dollars, or whatever. But while rounding is a type of discretization, it's not the only type, so you can't use it as a synonym. Sorry, I can't think of any other word