Yes. I think Jon Stewart said it best, after showing a clip of some Dem resigning over some trivial stupid shit: Pussies Sorry, I got the word "pussies" stuck in my throat"
Obama turned out to be weak tea. He had a chance after the election and that euphoric campaign rhetoric we voted for, to really shake things up and change everything. But Reid and Pelosi went straight back to the tried-and-true old way of doing things, and everything went to hell. They could have at least tried, written a goddam healthcare bill that was short enough so that they didn't fuck it up with mistakes like forgetting to include subsidies for the federal site.
My theory is that the Illuminati came to Obama during the campaign and told him, we'll let you win, but when you get in all this hope and change crap has to go. And Obama took the deal. As Clinton did in '92...
Include a definition entry under 'lose' that refers to 'loose' as a variant spelling, and vice versa. Context usually makes it clear, because the misspelling is based on the spoken sound which doesn't need to be spelled to be understood.
Each language user can have their personal, customizable filter, so they speak and hear the language they like, while everyone else speaks their preferred language. We simply need to improve our translation tech.
"How would a physics work if the rules of physics changed at the whim of the physicist?"
Isn't that what happens? Newton's laws are changed by Einstein? Higgs creates his boson on a whim, and other physicists follow along, and eventually find some data they say supports that whim? Aren't there other whims that could also account for the observations? Why select Higgs's? Popularity? Social pressure?
The ambiguity is nearly always resolved by the context.
You might stop and spend some brainpower correcting the usage in your head, but that's more a consequence of your having learned an arcane spelling, one that is no longer necessary.
It's a signal that "official" English spelling is getting further and further away from phonetics, and that is holding back the language's natural development .
Sounds like flawed assumptions. You can have very proper English that makes you think harder than the equivalent in slang. That's why txting is so popular, because it's easier to understand. But an oldster might be at a loss.
But computer science is so brittle. Disobey a rule and the program crashes. With ambiguous constructions, we don't have to crash; we can make guesses, look for context. If you see 01/02/03 you look for another clue to the author's convention.
Are there any prescriptivists left? How does prescriptivism help Google make a better search engine? Should it refuse to do a search for you, if you violate a "proper English" rule? What if the site you're looking for uses improper English, should it eliminate that site from your results?
But ambiguity is a strength. It helps creativity. Jokes are funny because words and phrases can mean different things. When you try to ban ambiguity you lose expressivity. And formal languages can't get rid of ambiguity: math symbols are often used without fully defining them, leading to you having to read the writer's mind to get what he's trying to communicate.
Though I guess the Supreme Court can affect millions in its ruling on the ACA use of "state".
My opinion: "state" is commonly used to refer to the Federal government. If I say "the state should pay for healthcare", I clearly mean the Federal government, not an individual state. But if the court takes a narrower view, then they are essentially enforcing a usage rule.
I think of baby chicks sexed by workers, the males sent to a grinder because that's the best economic use for them. All those little lives ended so soon after birth, by a fucking grinder.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. I think Jon Stewart said it best, after showing a clip of some Dem resigning over some trivial stupid shit: Pussies Sorry, I got the word "pussies" stuck in my throat"
Obama turned out to be weak tea. He had a chance after the election and that euphoric campaign rhetoric we voted for, to really shake things up and change everything. But Reid and Pelosi went straight back to the tried-and-true old way of doing things, and everything went to hell. They could have at least tried, written a goddam healthcare bill that was short enough so that they didn't fuck it up with mistakes like forgetting to include subsidies for the federal site.
My theory is that the Illuminati came to Obama during the campaign and told him, we'll let you win, but when you get in all this hope and change crap has to go. And Obama took the deal. As Clinton did in '92...
Maybe a kickstarter could fund it?
Defund the entire DHS, put the Border Patrol on a Basic Income funded at zero cost by the Fed, and challenge them to become decent human beings.
I did. I got links to company names: Axiom IC.
It's impolite to the max! Yo!
Better example: "Someone goes down to the market. They buy? He buys? He/She buys? He or she buys? It buys?
I accept any of those. Call them in "free variation". Myself, I'd use "they" or "he".
I wonder what kind of toxic assets he's negotiating about selling off of whose balance sheet?
Include a definition entry under 'lose' that refers to 'loose' as a variant spelling, and vice versa. Context usually makes it clear, because the misspelling is based on the spoken sound which doesn't need to be spelled to be understood.
Each language user can have their personal, customizable filter, so they speak and hear the language they like, while everyone else speaks their preferred language. We simply need to improve our translation tech.
"How would a physics work if the rules of physics changed at the whim of the physicist?"
Isn't that what happens? Newton's laws are changed by Einstein? Higgs creates his boson on a whim, and other physicists follow along, and eventually find some data they say supports that whim? Aren't there other whims that could also account for the observations? Why select Higgs's? Popularity? Social pressure?
"Nature doesn't permit our language to have both unlimited adaptability and unlimited stability."
Why not? Filter what you don't want, or translate it to what you think it should look like.
So if someone writes "its" for "it's", automatically insert the apostrophe before you read it.
It's an AI challenge. If gizoogle tranzizzle can go from English to Ebonics, can't we do the reverse?
The ambiguity is nearly always resolved by the context.
You might stop and spend some brainpower correcting the usage in your head, but that's more a consequence of your having learned an arcane spelling, one that is no longer necessary.
It's a signal that "official" English spelling is getting further and further away from phonetics, and that is holding back the language's natural development .
That's my quick two-cents'-worth argument.
I enjoy a good cop-killing, 'tis true.
Sounds like flawed assumptions. You can have very proper English that makes you think harder than the equivalent in slang. That's why txting is so popular, because it's easier to understand. But an oldster might be at a loss.
But computer science is so brittle. Disobey a rule and the program crashes. With ambiguous constructions, we don't have to crash; we can make guesses, look for context. If you see 01/02/03 you look for another clue to the author's convention.
So the rules are more about credentialing than communication?
spoken but retards? Do you think your empirical language rule inferer would reject that sentence?
Are there any prescriptivists left? How does prescriptivism help Google make a better search engine? Should it refuse to do a search for you, if you violate a "proper English" rule? What if the site you're looking for uses improper English, should it eliminate that site from your results?
But ambiguity is a strength. It helps creativity. Jokes are funny because words and phrases can mean different things. When you try to ban ambiguity you lose expressivity. And formal languages can't get rid of ambiguity: math symbols are often used without fully defining them, leading to you having to read the writer's mind to get what he's trying to communicate.
But the internet provides definitions for slang so anyone can look it up.
As for compulsory formal rules, what about Bush? "grow the pie higher", etc.
Who gets hurt if you dangle a particle?
Though I guess the Supreme Court can affect millions in its ruling on the ACA use of "state".
My opinion: "state" is commonly used to refer to the Federal government. If I say "the state should pay for healthcare", I clearly mean the Federal government, not an individual state. But if the court takes a narrower view, then they are essentially enforcing a usage rule.
What the fuck is "axiomic"?
"I think that he were walking to the store"
I've never heard or seen that usage in English; I think that's another blunder in the grandparent post.
"I think that be another blunder"? Sounds off to me.
I think of baby chicks sexed by workers, the males sent to a grinder because that's the best economic use for them. All those little lives ended so soon after birth, by a fucking grinder.
Meat is murder.