First off, Hanyu Pinyin does not romanize into the English alphabet:
That's fine. I didn't mention this English alphabet.
It comes close, but used strictly it returns words which the untrained - but literate - American cannot pronounce.
You've started to talk about an irrelevant nationality.
As far as "no choice" goes, there's Hanyu Pinyin, EFEO, Gwoyeu Romatzyh, Latinxua Sin Wenz, Chinese Postal Map Romanization, Tongyong Pinyin, Wade-Giles, Yale, Legge romanization, and Simplified Wade.
And Hanyu Pinyin is the standard one. It's like Unicode versus legacy encodings, or metric units versus legacy units.
And that's just for Standard Mandarin romanization.
For Pete's sake, folks, the word is transliterated. There's no single correct spelling in English. If you can't live with that, you can conform to the manual of style of your choice. But don't flame over it.
Pinyin is well-established as the system for representing Chinese in our alphabet. It is not a matter of choice or opinion. The place is called "Tiananmen". The only debate is on whether there should be an apostrophe after the first n to represent the syllable boundary.
Are you still jesting, or did you just seriously imply that the plural of "apocalypse" is "apocali"? I've come across the "the plural of any difficult-looking word must end in 'i' or perhaps 'ii'" rule before, but this is a particularly eye-popping example.
When the Mark I had been used to search for new Mersenne primes in 1949, a press account coined the phrase "electronic brain" to characterize it.
Interestingly, this is still the standard term to refer to computers in Chinese. Unfortunately, I can't write it here due to Slashdot's Unicode inadequacies.
There. Fixed that for you. Generalising like that never does an argument any good.;)
Same as mainstream science really. A couple of bad roses in every bunch.
It's not a generalisation. Look at creationism, and it can be seen that, by definition, creationism is throwing out the evidence and inserting Biblical dogma instead.
So if a production one costs 10 dollars, 3 time 10 is $30,
Then, because its less, we have to subtract his costs of $30 from the production cost of $10, it costs him minus 20 dollars to build each one?
You mean it was 1/3 the cost of a production unit.
There is no such thing as "3 times less" of anything.
So, you're saying that "3 times less" means you get "3 times" and then subtract it. By that logic, "3 times more" would mean you get "3 times" and then add it. So, "3 times more" than $10 would be $40.
This alone should be enough to make you realise that your usage of the terminology is idiosyncratic. In normal English, "3 times more" means you multiple by 3, and "3 times less" means you divide by 3. It is totally unambiguous. It may be colloquial English usage, but it is not incorrect.
If you're talking about leaving the o out, then yes, it's proper Latin. The word was fetus in Classical Latin. It gained an o in the mediaeval period. Standard English overwhelmingly prefers this later spelling, but the etymology does give Americans a very good excuse for removing the o in this particular word.
The plural of this word in Latin is spelt the same as the singular, but the u is lengthened in the pronunciation. When this is the case, we in English just give the word a normal English plural in -es.
Giving the word a plural in -i (by analogy with words like alumnus) is a forgivable mistake, but "f(o)etii" is just idiocy. You might as well write "babyses".
Some people want a choice. Others, like me, want both raw and jpeg. Actually I want tiff as well. Recording 3 versions eats up space but allows quick edits and small prints, ie jpeg, as well as more in depth editing as well as larger prints, ie tiff and raw.
You seem to have missed the point. I want more choice, not less. I asked (rhetorically) why powerful modern cameras offer only JPEG and raw, instead of JPEG, raw, and PNG.
JPEG compression is JPEG compression and RAW data is RAW data.
Indeed. What I don't get is why modern cameras still make us chose between those two. Why do I have to have either lossy compression or a monster of a file that requires further processing? Can't I just have a PNG option?
I just like posting "Jew" every once in a while. It's always interesting to see how it gets modded. The fact that it almost invariably turns into "troll" says a lot about those who get blessed with mod points around here. It's a simple adjective, it has absolutely no context in the conversation, and yet people take it as some sort of epithet. What does that say in the larger scheme of things, I wonder?
You don't know what "adjective" or "epithet" mean.
It's all relative. If you grew up and lived most your life in New York City or Seoul or Tokyo or Mexico City, then 300,000 people spread out over an Iowa mile is indeed "small."
Small, yes (to a Londoner like me). But a "small town"? Once you add a specific noun, you have something to compare it with. It's no longer all just relative to your experience. Is a polymer a small molecule, because it is smaller than (say) my body? Surely it ought to be compared to something like dihydrogen.
A settlement of 300,000 is a small city but a reasonable town.
Why hasn't this story been fixed? The title says that the Conservatives have been criticised, and the summary says that Labour has been criticised by the Conservatives.
You don't even have to be familiar with the facts to see the contradiction.
1) You are wrong. Palestine has been mainly Arab for centuries.
2) You are wrong. This is not the first invasion of Gaza.
Also, the Palestinians did not attack Europe and America before being occupied by a colonial force sent from there. In just the same way, the French did not attack Germany before being occupied by it. In just the same way, Tibet did not attack China before being occupied and colonised by it.
In all cases, there has been subsequent resistance.
I don't ask myself questions such as "what if I were Israel?", "what if I were Apartheid South Africa?", "what if I were Genghis Khan?", "what if I were the British Empire?". Such questions tend to reduce insight into the situation and empathy for the victims, not increase them.
That's a typical naive post expressing the idea that it's all about childish attachment to "holy sites". The Gazans are fighting back because they have been under siege for a year and a half. Jerusalem isn't even in Gaza.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, Hanyu Pinyin does not romanize into the English alphabet:
That's fine. I didn't mention this English alphabet.
It comes close, but used strictly it returns words which the untrained - but literate - American cannot pronounce.
You've started to talk about an irrelevant nationality.
As far as "no choice" goes, there's Hanyu Pinyin, EFEO, Gwoyeu Romatzyh, Latinxua Sin Wenz, Chinese Postal Map Romanization, Tongyong Pinyin, Wade-Giles, Yale, Legge romanization, and Simplified Wade.
And Hanyu Pinyin is the standard one. It's like Unicode versus legacy encodings, or metric units versus legacy units.
And that's just for Standard Mandarin romanization.
Which is what we're talking about.
The insular person (you) is the one that bitches about things not being perfectly tuned to his own, smaller environment.
You prove your insularity by referring to the world outside the US as a "smaller environment".
Bigot, learn ISO standards and put your narrow-mindedness behind you.
For Pete's sake, folks, the word is transliterated. There's no single correct spelling in English. If you can't live with that, you can conform to the manual of style of your choice. But don't flame over it.
Pinyin is well-established as the system for representing Chinese in our alphabet. It is not a matter of choice or opinion. The place is called "Tiananmen". The only debate is on whether there should be an apostrophe after the first n to represent the syllable boundary.
Faux-paux are rarely the sole possession of one political party.
Or of any.
I jest all types of apocali while fighting them.
Are you still jesting, or did you just seriously imply that the plural of "apocalypse" is "apocali"? I've come across the "the plural of any difficult-looking word must end in 'i' or perhaps 'ii'" rule before, but this is a particularly eye-popping example.
When the Mark I had been used to search for new Mersenne primes in 1949, a press account coined the phrase "electronic brain" to characterize it.
Interestingly, this is still the standard term to refer to computers in Chinese. Unfortunately, I can't write it here due to Slashdot's Unicode inadequacies.
And because you know that's a shamefully US-cock-sucking thing to say, you post anonymously.
Bah. I don't browse websites with ie anyway. I use Opera on Ubuntu, you insensitive clods!
The lowest estimate says 200,000. The best estimate says at least 1,000,000.
There. Fixed that for you. Generalising like that never does an argument any good.;)
Same as mainstream science really. A couple of bad roses in every bunch.
It's not a generalisation. Look at creationism, and it can be seen that, by definition, creationism is throwing out the evidence and inserting Biblical dogma instead.
So if a production one costs 10 dollars, 3 time 10 is $30,
Then, because its less, we have to subtract his costs of $30 from the production cost of $10, it costs him minus 20 dollars to build each one?
You mean it was 1/3 the cost of a production unit.
There is no such thing as "3 times less" of anything.
So, you're saying that "3 times less" means you get "3 times" and then subtract it. By that logic, "3 times more" would mean you get "3 times" and then add it. So, "3 times more" than $10 would be $40.
This alone should be enough to make you realise that your usage of the terminology is idiosyncratic. In normal English, "3 times more" means you multiple by 3, and "3 times less" means you divide by 3. It is totally unambiguous. It may be colloquial English usage, but it is not incorrect.
It's proper Latin, you insensitive clod!
If you're talking about leaving the o out, then yes, it's proper Latin. The word was fetus in Classical Latin. It gained an o in the mediaeval period. Standard English overwhelmingly prefers this later spelling, but the etymology does give Americans a very good excuse for removing the o in this particular word.
The plural of this word in Latin is spelt the same as the singular, but the u is lengthened in the pronunciation. When this is the case, we in English just give the word a normal English plural in -es.
Giving the word a plural in -i (by analogy with words like alumnus) is a forgivable mistake, but "f(o)etii" is just idiocy. You might as well write "babyses".
Don't be so harsh. In English it's "preventative" maintenance. I would guess in US English it's "preventive" (I didn't know that, so thanks)
I don't think you're right. It's not regional. Both forms are present in standard English, and I bet both exist in the US too.
I don't know what you're talking about. I don't see this alleged update anywhere in Synaptic.
Some people want a choice. Others, like me, want both raw and jpeg. Actually I want tiff as well. Recording 3 versions eats up space but allows quick edits and small prints, ie jpeg, as well as more in depth editing as well as larger prints, ie tiff and raw.
You seem to have missed the point. I want more choice, not less. I asked (rhetorically) why powerful modern cameras offer only JPEG and raw, instead of JPEG, raw, and PNG.
JPEG compression is JPEG compression and RAW data is RAW data.
Indeed. What I don't get is why modern cameras still make us chose between those two. Why do I have to have either lossy compression or a monster of a file that requires further processing? Can't I just have a PNG option?
I just like posting "Jew" every once in a while. It's always interesting to see how it gets modded. The fact that it almost invariably turns into "troll" says a lot about those who get blessed with mod points around here. It's a simple adjective, it has absolutely no context in the conversation, and yet people take it as some sort of epithet. What does that say in the larger scheme of things, I wonder?
You don't know what "adjective" or "epithet" mean.
It's all relative. If you grew up and lived most your life in New York City or Seoul or Tokyo or Mexico City, then 300,000 people spread out over an Iowa mile is indeed "small."
Small, yes (to a Londoner like me). But a "small town"? Once you add a specific noun, you have something to compare it with. It's no longer all just relative to your experience. Is a polymer a small molecule, because it is smaller than (say) my body? Surely it ought to be compared to something like dihydrogen.
A settlement of 300,000 is a small city but a reasonable town.
Why hasn't this story been fixed? The title says that the Conservatives have been criticised, and the summary says that Labour has been criticised by the Conservatives. You don't even have to be familiar with the facts to see the contradiction.
Obligatory YouTube video.
.At the time they recorded, there was nobody better. But since you're listening in 2008, .../p>
Dude, perhaps you should look at the calendar some time.
1) You are wrong. Palestine has been mainly Arab for centuries.
2) You are wrong. This is not the first invasion of Gaza.
Also, the Palestinians did not attack Europe and America before being occupied by a colonial force sent from there. In just the same way, the French did not attack Germany before being occupied by it. In just the same way, Tibet did not attack China before being occupied and colonised by it. In all cases, there has been subsequent resistance.
When the French Resistance killed German occupiers there were reprisals against the native population too. Who do you side with on that one?
I don't ask myself questions such as "what if I were Israel?", "what if I were Apartheid South Africa?", "what if I were Genghis Khan?", "what if I were the British Empire?". Such questions tend to reduce insight into the situation and empathy for the victims, not increase them.
That's a typical naive post expressing the idea that it's all about childish attachment to "holy sites". The Gazans are fighting back because they have been under siege for a year and a half. Jerusalem isn't even in Gaza.