<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Waifish</title>
	<link>http://wdr1.com/blog/2006/10/31/waifish/</link>
	<description>Screams in the Night</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:16:36 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Bill</title>
		<link>http://wdr1.com/blog/2006/10/31/waifish/#comment-882</link>
		<author>Bill</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2006 04:42:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://wdr1.com/blog/2006/10/31/waifish/#comment-882</guid>
		<description>I don't know what's more disturbing:  how fast you drank the koolaid or if you didn't answer my call because you were too busy commenting on my blog.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know what&#8217;s more disturbing:  how fast you drank the koolaid or if you didn&#8217;t answer my call because you were too busy commenting on my blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://wdr1.com/blog/2006/10/31/waifish/#comment-881</link>
		<author>Jim</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2006 04:39:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://wdr1.com/blog/2006/10/31/waifish/#comment-881</guid>
		<description>The reason google's spell checker is better than Word, aspell, etc, is that it's constantly learning.  People who did what you do feed it data of how people misspell words, so it gets better.

Unfortunately, Word and aspell don't have this functionality to improve their dictionaries.  So they rely on heuristics that remain constant.

And when you search, don't forget to pay attention to those delicious and informative text ads.  Woo!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The reason google&#8217;s spell checker is better than Word, aspell, etc, is that it&#8217;s constantly learning.  People who did what you do feed it data of how people misspell words, so it gets better.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, Word and aspell don&#8217;t have this functionality to improve their dictionaries.  So they rely on heuristics that remain constant.</p>
<p>And when you search, don&#8217;t forget to pay attention to those delicious and informative text ads.  Woo!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill</title>
		<link>http://wdr1.com/blog/2006/10/31/waifish/#comment-880</link>
		<author>Bill</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:19:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://wdr1.com/blog/2006/10/31/waifish/#comment-880</guid>
		<description>Even those can't get my spelling of convience!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even those can&#8217;t get my spelling of convience!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christopher Smith</title>
		<link>http://wdr1.com/blog/2006/10/31/waifish/#comment-879</link>
		<author>Christopher Smith</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2006 02:22:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://wdr1.com/blog/2006/10/31/waifish/#comment-879</guid>
		<description>Oh come on Bill. You should have long since learned to use things like ispell, aspell, and dict. You just aren't Unixy enough for your own good.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh come on Bill. You should have long since learned to use things like ispell, aspell, and dict. You just aren&#8217;t Unixy enough for your own good.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill</title>
		<link>http://wdr1.com/blog/2006/10/31/waifish/#comment-878</link>
		<author>Bill</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://wdr1.com/blog/2006/10/31/waifish/#comment-878</guid>
		<description>For Google conversions, I really prefer converting the speed of light to fathoms per fortnight:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&#38;lr=&#38;q=c+to+fathoms+per+fortnight&#38;btnG=Search</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For Google conversions, I really prefer converting the speed of light to fathoms per fortnight:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;q=c+to+fathoms+per+fortnight&amp;btnG=Search" rel="nofollow" onclick="javascript:urchinTracker ('/outbound/comment/www.google.com');">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;q=c+to+fathoms+per+fortnight&amp;btnG=Search</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: neb</title>
		<link>http://wdr1.com/blog/2006/10/31/waifish/#comment-877</link>
		<author>neb</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Nov 2006 01:01:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://wdr1.com/blog/2006/10/31/waifish/#comment-877</guid>
		<description>Calvin Klein</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Calvin Klein</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: khayman</title>
		<link>http://wdr1.com/blog/2006/10/31/waifish/#comment-876</link>
		<author>khayman</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:40:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://wdr1.com/blog/2006/10/31/waifish/#comment-876</guid>
		<description>Since discovering the dictionary.com bookmark keyword in Firefox that's been my primary spell checker and definition hander-outer.  But Google is still my default calculator.

Because, really where else can you do this:
185 pounds in stone
185 pounds = 13.2142857 stone</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since discovering the dictionary.com bookmark keyword in Firefox that&#8217;s been my primary spell checker and definition hander-outer.  But Google is still my default calculator.</p>
<p>Because, really where else can you do this:<br />
185 pounds in stone<br />
185 pounds = 13.2142857 stone</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
