So does InDesign, which uses the TeX algorithm, QuarkXPress, and just about any other application that lays out text. Even Word! Think of that! A program far more suited to laying out a visual medium (i.e., a visual program) could be as good or better than a 35 year old programming language that has a default typeface that's pretty much the most hideous ever designed by humankind (Knuth couldn't have done a worse job on Computer Modern).
What's a reasonable alternative? Anarchy? The "state" -- most rational people would say "government" -- you discuss is a collection of municipal, state and federal government, with differing goals and political orientations, and how should spectrum be allocated other than by a government agency? Where is it done differently? So I can't publish a book without the government's approval of it? Which government? Which agency approves books? As another poster said, what is correct in your post? You have to justify such ridiculous claims that are contradictory to reality.
This is absolutely, without any doubt, the stupidest, least intelligent and most ridiculous and sensationalist comment ever to appear on the internet, or to be expressed in any other form. What reasons do almost all countries have for wanting to see the US destroyed? What reasons do these countries that hate the US so much have to destroy the entirety of world trade? I can't believe this thought was formed in a human brain.
Let's try to remember that Roberts is appointing individuals from the existing set of federal judges -- i.e., people who have already been appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate as judges.
Performant is not an adjective. Performantly is not an adverb. Niether is a word. Use real words when you write. Maybe write, "It didn't work properly / perform adequately," instead of writing nonsense.
You mean your medical costs are covered by taxes you pay and taxes other people (and corporations) in the UK pay and the costs of medical research and development that might benefit you are paid by people in the US.
Is this factually incorrect? If so, please cite the source that contradicts the common knowledge that ed descended from QED, developed entirely separate from the MIT environment that led to EMACS. Which explains why EMACS couldn't be less like a good UNIX program.
And yet you're not post monarchy or aristocracy, so you haven't grown beyond needing to give people titles of duke and count and whatnot based on their birth.
And most Americans see the whole "monarchy" thing as ridiculously anachronistic with kings, queens, dukes, grand dukes, etc. and aristocracy of any kind as having no place in the modern world.
What is a "klischee"? Wherever you were educated can't have been much better than the US, which has the worst education system in the world (according to you). I'm sure the US also has the worst poverty in the world, the worst prison system in the world, the most killing and abduction of foreign civilians in the world, the most torture of its prisoners, but could you back that up with some sources or some rational thought?
The thinking is subconscious: you don't know you're doing it and you "forget" how long it takes, which is why you perceive the keyboard as faster. If you bother to read the research I've linked to, it covers all of your objections. I know it's difficult to let go of subjective impressions, but the stopwatch is always right compared to our own internal sense of time.
It's not an appeal to authority: that would be if I were appealing to the authority for the authority's sake; but I am appealing to scientific research presented by the authority. I'm fairly certain you'd agree that appealing to scientific evidence is valid, as you've tried to present it to me as part of your argument. I think the downvotes are because you running some kind of "experiment" on your own is different from a human interface researcher's actual research.
The "hard" thinking is subconscious: you don't know you're doing it and you "forget" how long it takes, which is why you perceive the keyboard as faster. Read the article. I know it's difficult to let go of subjective impressions, but the stopwatch is always right compared to our own internal sense of time.
In fact, it's the opposite. Using keyboard commands for movement is more distracting (and measurably slower) than using the mouse. It is precisely that the mouse is less distracting that tricks the mind into thinking the keyboard is faster. See AskTog:
[If you think this is incorrect, providing links to scientific evidence is more productive than downvoting or stating that your own subjective experience is different.]
In fact, there isn't anything so distracting and pulling you out of your zen when you use a mouse: that's precisely why the keyboard feels faster (you get lost in thought about what commands to use that you forget the time it takes) while the mouse is, in fact, faster. Ask Bruce Tognazzini.
Using the keyboard seems faster than using a mouse to move the cursor because you're thinking so hard about what to do with the keyboard that you forget the time it takes to get what you want accomplished, but using the keyboard is objectively, measurably slower than using the mouse for the same task; in other words, using the mouse is actually proven to be faster for cursor movement overall. You're just fooled by your subjective impression.