I believe that's off by an order of magnitude: the surface pressure on Venus is about 92 bar = 92 atmospheres, equivalent to a depth of about 3000 feet, slightly less than 1000 meters. Most of the Earth's ocean is much deeper than that. I think the deepest real dive (in the ocean or a lake) is around 1600 feet (500 meters). The reason for not going deeper has nothing to do with being crushed, since the gas you're breathing is at the same pressure as the water around you. Rather it is that the gases you're breathing become toxic.
"So much better than getting robbed by a 6 blade crook." Or you could grow a beard, like me. I've had one for the last 40 years, except for two years when I was in an indigenous area where they didn't trust bearded men. (Obviously not Muslims!)
The links you posted did nothing to "debunk" the idea of Dolphins using language as the person admits they're not a zoologist only a language blogger who has at most read a few news articles on the subject of dolphin's language abilities.
Wrong. If you want to show that something is language, then you need a linguist, not a biologist. The zoologist can do the recording, but doesn't know what a linguist knows about language. And contrary to your assertion, the linked-to bloggers (Geoff Pullum and Mark Liberman) are both PhD linguists, in fact well known among linguists. (And just in case you're wondering, my BS is in zoology, and my PhD is in linguistics.)
...given the neurological complexity of the brains of dolphins and whales, which is comparable to humans
"That article does absolutely nothing to refute dolphins use of names, except that they don't use them exactly like we do." Your second clause refutes your first clause: a name is something that's used in a particular way, either to call to the hearer (as a vocative) or to refer to a third person. (In some languages, and in "motherese", the speaker can also use a name to refer to themselves.) So if they're not using these calls the way we use names, the calls are by definition not names. They may be something else interesting, but not names.
I turn into a wolf every full moon, and I know at least 170 words. Except nmy dermatologist not only doesn't want me going out in sunlight, now he's saying I need to worry about moonlight.
"Everything is classified." If you looked at the original article, you would see this is not true. It was marked U//FOUO, which you can look up in Wikipedia if your fingers can walk that far.
I was just now going to post (first time I've read \. in several days), but scanned first to see if anyone had caught it. You're right, of course, on both accounts: he is the current DIRNSA, and the preceding posters are...well...I guess a nice word is ignorant.
" That's how apparent sea level rise is higher at NYC than elsewhere. The sinking of the land in combination with the rising sea levels makes global warming worse for NYC than most other coastal cities." Or putting it differently, some of the sea level rise at NYC--and the problem with storm surge--has nothing to do with global warming.
Ok, if you don't like that example, try Hangul (the writing system used for Korean) or Perso-Arabic (the writing system used for Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Punjabi, Pashto, and many other languages), or Tifinagh (used for various Berber languages) or Devanagari (Hindi, Marathi,...) or Bengali (Bangla) or Syriac (for Syrian) or Greek (language left as exercise to the student) or Cyrillic (Russian, Ukranian, and almost any Slavic language except Polish and Czech) or Hebrew or...
But you get the idea. Even many languages that use a "Latin" writing system have diacritics (accent marks, tildes, etc.) that aren't in ASCII.
"... a gramatically simple spoken language..." Like what? As a linguist, I don't know any languages with simple grammars; different language just put the complications in different places (like in the syntax instead of the morphology).
Rumor has it the Bible is still readable after a couple thousand years. In Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic if you take the time to learn, else in translation.
"Plain ASCII is the only thing that works." Ever try to encode Chinese in ASCII? Sure, you can do it, in the sense that you can encode any 32-bit sequence as a sequence of five 7-bit characters, but that doesn't mean anyone else will be able to figure it out. Including yourself ten years from now.
"...software lifetime is only like 7 or fewer years..." Do you have a source for this, or is this your guess?
I'm not asking to disagree, quite the opposite: for seven years (coincidence) now, I've been arguing for storing grammar data in an XML format precisely because storing it in the programming language of a particular grammar parser means it will be unuseable in the not-so-distant future. While I have anecdotes (I once wrote a parser using three programming languages, and all three of them became obsolete within a year or two), I would love to have a study to cite.
Slashdot Mirror
Give him a break folks, he's talking about the hot air storms in Congress.
"the character's 13th regeneration could be his last" But maybe not HER last.
I believe that's off by an order of magnitude: the surface pressure on Venus is about 92 bar = 92 atmospheres, equivalent to a depth of about 3000 feet, slightly less than 1000 meters. Most of the Earth's ocean is much deeper than that. I think the deepest real dive (in the ocean or a lake) is around 1600 feet (500 meters). The reason for not going deeper has nothing to do with being crushed, since the gas you're breathing is at the same pressure as the water around you. Rather it is that the gases you're breathing become toxic.
Oh, ok, I thought it said a Million and half years. I was worried.
"So much better than getting robbed by a 6 blade crook." Or you could grow a beard, like me. I've had one for the last 40 years, except for two years when I was in an indigenous area where they didn't trust bearded men. (Obviously not Muslims!)
One-up: My first computer (ok, not counting my Vic-20) had 640k of RAM, when 128k was standard.
And some of those planets--the Tok'ra, for instance--have unions.
The links you posted did nothing to "debunk" the idea of Dolphins using language as the person admits they're not a zoologist only a language blogger who has at most read a few news articles on the subject of dolphin's language abilities.
Wrong. If you want to show that something is language, then you need a linguist, not a biologist. The zoologist can do the recording, but doesn't know what a linguist knows about language. And contrary to your assertion, the linked-to bloggers (Geoff Pullum and Mark Liberman) are both PhD linguists, in fact well known among linguists. (And just in case you're wondering, my BS is in zoology, and my PhD is in linguistics.)
...given the neurological complexity of the brains of dolphins and whales, which is comparable to humans
Wrong again.
Or else he's calling for Little Red Riding Hood. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM8_v4AwltM
"That article does absolutely nothing to refute dolphins use of names, except that they don't use them exactly like we do." Your second clause refutes your first clause: a name is something that's used in a particular way, either to call to the hearer (as a vocative) or to refer to a third person. (In some languages, and in "motherese", the speaker can also use a name to refer to themselves.) So if they're not using these calls the way we use names, the calls are by definition not names. They may be something else interesting, but not names.
Saying "I'm here" and saying "Geoff Pullum" are extraordinarily different things. Afaik, there is zero evidence that dolphins do the latter.
I turn into a wolf every full moon, and I know at least 170 words. Except nmy dermatologist not only doesn't want me going out in sunlight, now he's saying I need to worry about moonlight.
"Everything is classified." If you looked at the original article, you would see this is not true. It was marked U//FOUO, which you can look up in Wikipedia if your fingers can walk that far.
I was just now going to post (first time I've read \. in several days), but scanned first to see if anyone had caught it. You're right, of course, on both accounts: he is the current DIRNSA, and the preceding posters are...well...I guess a nice word is ignorant.
Nuts, I was hoping to be the first to say this. Oh well, congrats!
" That's how apparent sea level rise is higher at NYC than elsewhere. The sinking of the land in combination with the rising sea levels makes global warming worse for NYC than most other coastal cities." Or putting it differently, some of the sea level rise at NYC--and the problem with storm surge--has nothing to do with global warming.
Ok, if you don't like that example, try Hangul (the writing system used for Korean) or Perso-Arabic (the writing system used for Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Punjabi, Pashto, and many other languages), or Tifinagh (used for various Berber languages) or Devanagari (Hindi, Marathi,...) or Bengali (Bangla) or Syriac (for Syrian) or Greek (language left as exercise to the student) or Cyrillic (Russian, Ukranian, and almost any Slavic language except Polish and Czech) or Hebrew or...
But you get the idea. Even many languages that use a "Latin" writing system have diacritics (accent marks, tildes, etc.) that aren't in ASCII.
"... a gramatically simple spoken language..." Like what? As a linguist, I don't know any languages with simple grammars; different language just put the complications in different places (like in the syntax instead of the morphology).
It's self-documenting code. We've been documenting it for thousands of years.
And I have email from the 1990s that I canNOT read today. It's called Lotus cc:Mail. (I could read it if I was willing to pay.)
"Digital data lasts forever -- or five years, whichever comes first."
--Jeff Rothenberg, 1997
Rumor has it the Bible is still readable after a couple thousand years. In Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic if you take the time to learn, else in translation.
And if it's not English? You know, one of those 6999 other languages. Or maybe a programming language.
"Plain ASCII is the only thing that works." Ever try to encode Chinese in ASCII? Sure, you can do it, in the sense that you can encode any 32-bit sequence as a sequence of five 7-bit characters, but that doesn't mean anyone else will be able to figure it out. Including yourself ten years from now.
"...software lifetime is only like 7 or fewer years..." Do you have a source for this, or is this your guess?
I'm not asking to disagree, quite the opposite: for seven years (coincidence) now, I've been arguing for storing grammar data in an XML format precisely because storing it in the programming language of a particular grammar parser means it will be unuseable in the not-so-distant future. While I have anecdotes (I once wrote a parser using three programming languages, and all three of them became obsolete within a year or two), I would love to have a study to cite.
I don't think you understand "intricate." Reverse engineering a data format from 20 years ago ain't like dustin' crops, boy.