Question: in general, is there a significant difference in the cognitive effort required to memorize a new ideogram versus memorize a new latin root? (Assuming that you can't derive the meaning from radicals / sub-ideograms within the ideograms or similar words.)
The only serious problem I see in using technological interfaces and consequently forgetting how to write characters is when people have to take a test (be it college entrance examinations or job tests, etc.) and are forced to complete a writing section by hand.
A big problem I see in suggesting that the Chinese and Japanese romanize or hangul-ize their alphabets is what other people have suggested: there's a shitton of human culture and history that will be lost. It would be awful. Also, as others have pointed out, once you're fluent in Japanese or Chinese, it's possible to absorb a lot of information very quickly when you look at ideograms. Some linguist or psychologist should do some tests to verify or test that hypothesis.
its [sic] likely that whoever attacked Google was on some form of Chinese government payroll. Over or under the table.
We're assuming the Chinese government sponsored these cyber attacks toward China-involved human rights activists.
However, do we have sufficient information to make that assumption? For all we know it could actually have been human rights activists setting up attacks to look like they were caused by the Chinese government.
Perhaps the role of the government is to regulate the free market when it's in the interest of citizens and the free market is unable to regulate itself. Obviously the current U.S. government dropped the ball on that one, likely starting with deregulation in the Reagan era.
What would make Google's censoring worse would be if Indians did not know Google was censoring. Do they know? Can they read slashdot?
And, signal-to-noise-ratio is a problem, as is any other denial-of-service type attack on our ability to express our thoughts. People shouldn't feel threatened for speaking their minds, nor should they be placed in a muzzle and unable to speak - literally or allegorically.
It seems to me that when China has some of the best developed infrastructure in the world, it really can't be considered a developing country any more. It is developed. Sure, maybe not all areas of China are fully developed, but you could state the same thing about any country, including the US.
Japan used to invest money or donate heavily toward Chinese infrastructure. As I recall the motivation for somehow monetarily aiding China was political, and giving that money for infrastructure was the only thing the Japanese could justify.
However, when Chinese came into its economic own, that means of political sway become pointless. The point is that China should indeed have infrastructure, though certainly I've never seen it with my own eyes.
A few years ago, as a student, I got to go visit the UN's Geneva campus, sponsored by one of the various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that has a presence at the UN. While I was there, I got to go sit in on one of the meetings regarding the formation of the Human Rights Commission. (Committee? Council? I can't remember.) During the meeting, representatives from one of the other NGOs in attendance started to hand out flyers encouraging action in Darfur.
The representative from Sudan was not pleased with this, to say the least, and demanded they cease distributing the flyers. The NGO in question was informed that they were not to do that, and that they'd be removed if they continued to do so.
The UN is a farce when it comes to doing anything useful about human rights.
I would mod you up if I could. You provides a good counterexample to those who argue (rightly) that maybe just some middle manager got nervous and had the security guard knock down and remove the poster. Really it could be any combination of UN policy being enforced or some individual(s) acting alone, but what's important is that censorship happened. Obviously we don't know what the poster said, whether it was factually valid or appropriate, and having those situational details would make this article and video better. As it is, it's more off-topic "he-said, she-said" bullshit. Give me facts, presented in a non-biased way!
The cell phone industry in the U.S. is an oligopoly. (And presumably everywhere else, too, due to the obstacles of getting permission for and setting up infrastructure.) As far as I know, unlike basic utilities (i.e. water and electric), the cell phone industry is nowhere near as heavily regulated by the Federal government. And though I think having a cell phone is a social necessity, the customer-contracting part of the industry seems wholly unregulated. I don't believe this is in any way a good thing for the consumer.
Here are some things that leave me with a bad taste in my mouth:
1) We all take it for granted that cell-phone contracts are for two years. Why is it two years? Presumably because that's the price consumers have been willing to pay. Furthermore, it's not like you can fulfil the two year contract and then go month-to-month; instead, you have to enter into ANOTHER two-year contract, so that every two years you have exactly ONE MONTH to avoid paying a cancellation fee. Imagine if your water bill had this "price-structuring."
2) Because of piggybacking on voice signals, it costs cell phone companies essentially nothing to transmit SMS messages. Yet, for the longest time, to send an SMS text in the U.S. was ludicrously expensive. Paying $10/month for a service that costs my carrier literally nothing makes me feel used.
3) List of fees when I last signed up:
a) $30 sign-up fee (would be $45 if instead I wanted to pay the sign-up fee in cash or be sent a bill in the mail, but it was only $30 if I wanted the fee drawn from a credit card. However, paying the sign-up fee by credit card automatically set up my monthly billing to draw from that credit card, and I couldn't change this until several months down the line.)
b) $30 labor charge (i.e. another $30 sign-up fee)
c) $10 plan add-ons which you have to sign-up for but can cancel starting the next month. Note that by the time you get your first bill and go to cancel this fee, it generally takes another two months of bills to take effect.
I think that the cell phone industry is of significant utility to U.S. citizens that we deserve to have our government step in and help regulate its pricing and scheming because we are sufficiently unable to do restrain ourselves long enough to have effect in the free market.
I'm 25. After two years in the industry (and about four years of college), I became really disillusioned with computer science. I attempted to quit my job and go hike around Japan. Ultimately, my company gave me a quite generous leave of absence (which I'm still on). I'm still in Japan, now teaching at an elementary school. It's tiring work, but I feel loved and appreciated. My salary is roughly half of what it was before, but my rent has also been halved, I have no car or car insurance, etc., so I live well.
As the guy above spoke, you can probably arrange with your company to take a leave of absence. It takes courage, but you can leap blindly and still land on your feet.
Really? You realize concrete is from 8 to 10 times harder than asphalt. And while I can scratch the ground on the Savannah with my fingernail (which has a Mohs' hardness of about 2.5), asphalt scratches off my fingernail which means it's at least 2.5 hardness or harder.
I've run on the desert floor. It's like running on a feather bed compared to running on concrete. Though I do have to admit I've never had a cactus thorn run clean through my toe while running on concrete.
Exactly. The pronation-'correcting,' cushiony soles of the modern age are a response to the horrific places where we run, on non-giving surfaces like concrete and asphalt.
If you look back in time, why would man create shoes in the first place? I'd imagine in response to extreme cold and heat, and low-to-the-ground threats like snake bites. Hell, even Johnny Appleseed went barefoot a few hundred years ago. But since then, we've done a terrific job of makes the earth a dangerous place to walk. For starters, think of all the sharp metallic junk on the streets and sidewalks.
The difference is that google would have cooperated with authorities and media companies. Take a look at what they've done with youtube and Video ID. They will actively try to prevent copyright infringement. Pirate bay didn't and wasn't willing to do that.
That should have absolutely no implications on the legality of the pirate bay, in the same way that my calling a police officer a fat pig shouldn't affect the severity of a speeding ticket I'm about to get.
I was going to throw my Windows XP laptop in the trash until I installed ubuntu and revived the ailing beast. I don't think "one case fits all" applies for criticisms of speed or battery life on notebooks.
I support the journalist for downloading the movie. Would it be as scandalous to read a draft of a novel or hear a music demo? Rupert Murdoch doesn't give a shit about art, he's about $-dolla!!billz-$, and like the RIAA he'll try to make an example of every poor sap that he can.
Gathered, I can't say I support the guy for being a critic or working FOR fox, but the latter problem may have just solved itself... And there is a certain amount of brazenness or buffoonery required to openly admit to 'pirating,' but...
What would the DPRK possibly benefit by nuking Japan,...?
As Dostoyevsky explains and demonstrates in "Notes from Underground," human beings will act unreasonably, and often not out of ignorance but out of spite.
I can't think of something the DPRK gains by nuking Japan, but if one crazy old coot got satisfaction by pressing the big red button, the end result is still the same.
Rebuttal: it's not like there's only one division of the public and private. Perhaps you enter a strip club, and you do things that are "public" within that domain - i.e. everyone in the strip club can see them. However, maybe you go back and give a special dance, so you're doing something more exclusively private within an already private domain.
My point is that the entire 'Public-Private' argument is folly because there are no universal nor concrete definitions of 'public' and 'private.' And thus I'm sick of people using the "well, you shouldn't have done it in public" argument. We're talking about issues fundamental to human psychological well-being, and it's not constructive to just play off people's fears like they're overreacting.
I can't think of the last time I read something really intelligent or trenchant in the news (though, in some sense, news should just be a giant fact dump). Most content is vacuous, headline puns are trite, and the entire industry stinks like the dead horse of a thousand beatings.
I will not think of paying for the news until they demonstrate to me that their content is worth my time. And given the historical inflexibility of massive for-profit industries (e.g. the music industry), I think things will need to break completely before they can be rebuilt successfully.
Hey, you guys should look at Japanese schools, where there are essentially no disciplinary actions teachers can take against misbehaving students. And is it just me, or does it seem like the school and teachers and police are overreacting in this instance? I bet they're wishing they could hook this girl up with the judge from a few days ago who was jailing kids for dollar kickbacks. *Sighs*
It's not just about privacy, it's about intellectual property. Before, facebook made claims to our content, which was hard to swallow. Now they're saying that their claim extends even after WE'VE deleted said content. For we who post pieces of photography, art, writing, etc. on facebook to share them, this changes the game.
Secondly, you're making the assertion that privacy is all or nothing, which is a fallacy. By showing the family jewels to my wife, I am not implicitly accepting some EULA to show them to the world. Maybe the neighbors will get a glimpse, but that's their good fortune. You know, we HAVE the right to ask for privacy from those who provide services to us. If they don't comply, we have the right to decline their services. This Facebook brouhaha is a perfect example.
You're paranoid and overreacting. I know that doesn't help you very much, but run through the logic, man:
Being falsely accused is something we all fear. I understand how you feel, I bet it makes you terribly anxious. But you can quickly demonstrate you're innocent, right? If you're innocent, you shouldn't be worried about it, right? Furthermore, if they're interested in you enough to Google you, they're probably going to be interested enough to click that link and read into it. Just think about it...
Revenge never seeks to nor is able to rectify the damage done. A rational way to deal with these corrupt judges is to ask what example could be made of them that would best deter similar crimes in the future?
Within the bounds of humane treatment (i.e. no torture), what would people who would unjustly sentence children to prison fear most? Death? Jail time? Public humiliation, such as forced resignation from the bench and bar? I'm not saying the answer is simple, but it's important to think before calling for blood. Also, these criminal trials won't begin to address the flaws in the justice system that allowed these men to suckle from the tits of depravity, nor the emotional scarring done to the kids locked up. There is much to be done.
One other thing to consider is, if we delete our photos, are they going to keep them stored somewhere? Storage space is never free, maintaining server farms is expensive, and it seems prudent for Facebook to trash content no longer wanted by users.
In general, I think the Facebook approach is, "If users aren't actively asserting their rights, we should claim those rights to cover our asses and our padded bank accounts." Things will get ugly when Facebook actually tries to collect on its supposed 'rights.' And given their track record, does anyone doubt whether the arrogant Facebook management will transgress more boundaries?
So, you are saying that Vodafone's ethics are okay, "under the circumstances"? That seems to be what I get from your comments.
First thing, corporations don't have ethics, at best the people within those corporations have ethics.
The Vodafone exec would have a shitton of shareholders breathing down his neck and calling for his head if he pulled out of Egypt or sacrificed a large amount of shareholder money in order to withhold data from the government. What's really necessary if your assessing duty to the corporation is to look to the shareholders for responsibility. Some won't care, others might, but what if you stand to lose a significant amount of your invested personal wealth because you demanded Vodafone not hand over data at risk of being forced out of Egypt?
The moral territory is slippery. Social psychology phenomena such as the bystander effect imply that everyone is going to shift the responsibility or blame on to someone else. It's human nature. Another alternative would be to pressure the Egyptian government. But who should do that? Vodafone, other governments? Everyone has a variety of interests at stake, and it's often easier and safer to do nothing than to strive for change. I'd prefer a different ending than these people being betrayed by their service providers and Egypt's government screwing them, so isn't it more important to think of a solution than to get wishy-washy about 'vodafone's ethics.'
Slashdot Mirror
From what I understand, the patients were merely given pills labeled 'placebo'. Do we know that all patients could read and knew what 'placebo' meant?
Question: in general, is there a significant difference in the cognitive effort required to memorize a new ideogram versus memorize a new latin root? (Assuming that you can't derive the meaning from radicals / sub-ideograms within the ideograms or similar words.) The only serious problem I see in using technological interfaces and consequently forgetting how to write characters is when people have to take a test (be it college entrance examinations or job tests, etc.) and are forced to complete a writing section by hand. A big problem I see in suggesting that the Chinese and Japanese romanize or hangul-ize their alphabets is what other people have suggested: there's a shitton of human culture and history that will be lost. It would be awful. Also, as others have pointed out, once you're fluent in Japanese or Chinese, it's possible to absorb a lot of information very quickly when you look at ideograms. Some linguist or psychologist should do some tests to verify or test that hypothesis.
its [sic] likely that whoever attacked Google was on some form of Chinese government payroll. Over or under the table.
We're assuming the Chinese government sponsored these cyber attacks toward China-involved human rights activists.
However, do we have sufficient information to make that assumption? For all we know it could actually have been human rights activists setting up attacks to look like they were caused by the Chinese government.
Perhaps the role of the government is to regulate the free market when it's in the interest of citizens and the free market is unable to regulate itself. Obviously the current U.S. government dropped the ball on that one, likely starting with deregulation in the Reagan era.
What would make Google's censoring worse would be if Indians did not know Google was censoring. Do they know? Can they read slashdot?
And, signal-to-noise-ratio is a problem, as is any other denial-of-service type attack on our ability to express our thoughts. People shouldn't feel threatened for speaking their minds, nor should they be placed in a muzzle and unable to speak - literally or allegorically.
It seems to me that when China has some of the best developed infrastructure in the world, it really can't be considered a developing country any more. It is developed. Sure, maybe not all areas of China are fully developed, but you could state the same thing about any country, including the US.
Japan used to invest money or donate heavily toward Chinese infrastructure. As I recall the motivation for somehow monetarily aiding China was political, and giving that money for infrastructure was the only thing the Japanese could justify.
However, when Chinese came into its economic own, that means of political sway become pointless. The point is that China should indeed have infrastructure, though certainly I've never seen it with my own eyes.
A few years ago, as a student, I got to go visit the UN's Geneva campus, sponsored by one of the various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that has a presence at the UN. While I was there, I got to go sit in on one of the meetings regarding the formation of the Human Rights Commission. (Committee? Council? I can't remember.) During the meeting, representatives from one of the other NGOs in attendance started to hand out flyers encouraging action in Darfur.
The representative from Sudan was not pleased with this, to say the least, and demanded they cease distributing the flyers. The NGO in question was informed that they were not to do that, and that they'd be removed if they continued to do so.
The UN is a farce when it comes to doing anything useful about human rights.
I would mod you up if I could. You provides a good counterexample to those who argue (rightly) that maybe just some middle manager got nervous and had the security guard knock down and remove the poster. Really it could be any combination of UN policy being enforced or some individual(s) acting alone, but what's important is that censorship happened. Obviously we don't know what the poster said, whether it was factually valid or appropriate, and having those situational details would make this article and video better. As it is, it's more off-topic "he-said, she-said" bullshit. Give me facts, presented in a non-biased way!
The cell phone industry in the U.S. is an oligopoly. (And presumably everywhere else, too, due to the obstacles of getting permission for and setting up infrastructure.) As far as I know, unlike basic utilities (i.e. water and electric), the cell phone industry is nowhere near as heavily regulated by the Federal government. And though I think having a cell phone is a social necessity, the customer-contracting part of the industry seems wholly unregulated. I don't believe this is in any way a good thing for the consumer.
Here are some things that leave me with a bad taste in my mouth:
1) We all take it for granted that cell-phone contracts are for two years. Why is it two years? Presumably because that's the price consumers have been willing to pay. Furthermore, it's not like you can fulfil the two year contract and then go month-to-month; instead, you have to enter into ANOTHER two-year contract, so that every two years you have exactly ONE MONTH to avoid paying a cancellation fee. Imagine if your water bill had this "price-structuring."
2) Because of piggybacking on voice signals, it costs cell phone companies essentially nothing to transmit SMS messages. Yet, for the longest time, to send an SMS text in the U.S. was ludicrously expensive. Paying $10/month for a service that costs my carrier literally nothing makes me feel used.
3) List of fees when I last signed up:
a) $30 sign-up fee (would be $45 if instead I wanted to pay the sign-up fee in cash or be sent a bill in the mail, but it was only $30 if I wanted the fee drawn from a credit card. However, paying the sign-up fee by credit card automatically set up my monthly billing to draw from that credit card, and I couldn't change this until several months down the line.)
b) $30 labor charge (i.e. another $30 sign-up fee)
c) $10 plan add-ons which you have to sign-up for but can cancel starting the next month. Note that by the time you get your first bill and go to cancel this fee, it generally takes another two months of bills to take effect.
I think that the cell phone industry is of significant utility to U.S. citizens that we deserve to have our government step in and help regulate its pricing and scheming because we are sufficiently unable to do restrain ourselves long enough to have effect in the free market.
I'm 25. After two years in the industry (and about four years of college), I became really disillusioned with computer science. I attempted to quit my job and go hike around Japan. Ultimately, my company gave me a quite generous leave of absence (which I'm still on). I'm still in Japan, now teaching at an elementary school. It's tiring work, but I feel loved and appreciated. My salary is roughly half of what it was before, but my rent has also been halved, I have no car or car insurance, etc., so I live well. As the guy above spoke, you can probably arrange with your company to take a leave of absence. It takes courage, but you can leap blindly and still land on your feet.
Really? You realize concrete is from 8 to 10 times harder than asphalt. And while I can scratch the ground on the Savannah with my fingernail (which has a Mohs' hardness of about 2.5), asphalt scratches off my fingernail which means it's at least 2.5 hardness or harder.
I've run on the desert floor. It's like running on a feather bed compared to running on concrete. Though I do have to admit I've never had a cactus thorn run clean through my toe while running on concrete.
Exactly. The pronation-'correcting,' cushiony soles of the modern age are a response to the horrific places where we run, on non-giving surfaces like concrete and asphalt.
If you look back in time, why would man create shoes in the first place? I'd imagine in response to extreme cold and heat, and low-to-the-ground threats like snake bites. Hell, even Johnny Appleseed went barefoot a few hundred years ago. But since then, we've done a terrific job of makes the earth a dangerous place to walk. For starters, think of all the sharp metallic junk on the streets and sidewalks.
The difference is that google would have cooperated with authorities and media companies. Take a look at what they've done with youtube and Video ID. They will actively try to prevent copyright infringement. Pirate bay didn't and wasn't willing to do that.
That should have absolutely no implications on the legality of the pirate bay, in the same way that my calling a police officer a fat pig shouldn't affect the severity of a speeding ticket I'm about to get.
I was going to throw my Windows XP laptop in the trash until I installed ubuntu and revived the ailing beast. I don't think "one case fits all" applies for criticisms of speed or battery life on notebooks.
I support the journalist for downloading the movie. Would it be as scandalous to read a draft of a novel or hear a music demo? Rupert Murdoch doesn't give a shit about art, he's about $-dolla!!billz-$, and like the RIAA he'll try to make an example of every poor sap that he can.
Gathered, I can't say I support the guy for being a critic or working FOR fox, but the latter problem may have just solved itself... And there is a certain amount of brazenness or buffoonery required to openly admit to 'pirating,' but...
What would the DPRK possibly benefit by nuking Japan, ...?
As Dostoyevsky explains and demonstrates in "Notes from Underground," human beings will act unreasonably, and often not out of ignorance but out of spite.
I can't think of something the DPRK gains by nuking Japan, but if one crazy old coot got satisfaction by pressing the big red button, the end result is still the same.
Kinda relatedly, I wonder what the internet has done for the porn industry's revenues.
Rebuttal: it's not like there's only one division of the public and private. Perhaps you enter a strip club, and you do things that are "public" within that domain - i.e. everyone in the strip club can see them. However, maybe you go back and give a special dance, so you're doing something more exclusively private within an already private domain.
My point is that the entire 'Public-Private' argument is folly because there are no universal nor concrete definitions of 'public' and 'private.' And thus I'm sick of people using the "well, you shouldn't have done it in public" argument. We're talking about issues fundamental to human psychological well-being, and it's not constructive to just play off people's fears like they're overreacting.
"Jobs On Track For June Return" hahaha, I was with you all the way, totally excited by the news. Then I read a bit, "What the hell?"
I can't think of the last time I read something really intelligent or trenchant in the news (though, in some sense, news should just be a giant fact dump). Most content is vacuous, headline puns are trite, and the entire industry stinks like the dead horse of a thousand beatings.
I will not think of paying for the news until they demonstrate to me that their content is worth my time. And given the historical inflexibility of massive for-profit industries (e.g. the music industry), I think things will need to break completely before they can be rebuilt successfully.
Hey, you guys should look at Japanese schools, where there are essentially no disciplinary actions teachers can take against misbehaving students. And is it just me, or does it seem like the school and teachers and police are overreacting in this instance? I bet they're wishing they could hook this girl up with the judge from a few days ago who was jailing kids for dollar kickbacks. *Sighs*
It's not just about privacy, it's about intellectual property. Before, facebook made claims to our content, which was hard to swallow. Now they're saying that their claim extends even after WE'VE deleted said content. For we who post pieces of photography, art, writing, etc. on facebook to share them, this changes the game.
Secondly, you're making the assertion that privacy is all or nothing, which is a fallacy. By showing the family jewels to my wife, I am not implicitly accepting some EULA to show them to the world. Maybe the neighbors will get a glimpse, but that's their good fortune. You know, we HAVE the right to ask for privacy from those who provide services to us. If they don't comply, we have the right to decline their services. This Facebook brouhaha is a perfect example.
You're paranoid and overreacting. I know that doesn't help you very much, but run through the logic, man:
Being falsely accused is something we all fear. I understand how you feel, I bet it makes you terribly anxious. But you can quickly demonstrate you're innocent, right? If you're innocent, you shouldn't be worried about it, right? Furthermore, if they're interested in you enough to Google you, they're probably going to be interested enough to click that link and read into it. Just think about it...
Revenge never seeks to nor is able to rectify the damage done. A rational way to deal with these corrupt judges is to ask what example could be made of them that would best deter similar crimes in the future?
Within the bounds of humane treatment (i.e. no torture), what would people who would unjustly sentence children to prison fear most? Death? Jail time? Public humiliation, such as forced resignation from the bench and bar? I'm not saying the answer is simple, but it's important to think before calling for blood. Also, these criminal trials won't begin to address the flaws in the justice system that allowed these men to suckle from the tits of depravity, nor the emotional scarring done to the kids locked up. There is much to be done.
One other thing to consider is, if we delete our photos, are they going to keep them stored somewhere? Storage space is never free, maintaining server farms is expensive, and it seems prudent for Facebook to trash content no longer wanted by users.
In general, I think the Facebook approach is, "If users aren't actively asserting their rights, we should claim those rights to cover our asses and our padded bank accounts." Things will get ugly when Facebook actually tries to collect on its supposed 'rights.' And given their track record, does anyone doubt whether the arrogant Facebook management will transgress more boundaries?
Like the xkcd with Mephistopheles!
http://xkcd.com/501/
You know they say 10% of the men get 90% of the women. There's a correlation here.
So, you are saying that Vodafone's ethics are okay, "under the circumstances"? That seems to be what I get from your comments.
First thing, corporations don't have ethics, at best the people within those corporations have ethics.
The Vodafone exec would have a shitton of shareholders breathing down his neck and calling for his head if he pulled out of Egypt or sacrificed a large amount of shareholder money in order to withhold data from the government. What's really necessary if your assessing duty to the corporation is to look to the shareholders for responsibility. Some won't care, others might, but what if you stand to lose a significant amount of your invested personal wealth because you demanded Vodafone not hand over data at risk of being forced out of Egypt?
The moral territory is slippery. Social psychology phenomena such as the bystander effect imply that everyone is going to shift the responsibility or blame on to someone else. It's human nature. Another alternative would be to pressure the Egyptian government. But who should do that? Vodafone, other governments? Everyone has a variety of interests at stake, and it's often easier and safer to do nothing than to strive for change. I'd prefer a different ending than these people being betrayed by their service providers and Egypt's government screwing them, so isn't it more important to think of a solution than to get wishy-washy about 'vodafone's ethics.'