Since I admit I am also not familiar with many other languages, I do not know if the "most" is correct or not. Both of us gave anecdotal evidence... which is usually enough by/. standards:) Regarding Hebrew: the fact that it has been resurrected, is a fact that many say helped it retain many of its ancient characteristics, and is why it is easy for a modern Hebrew-speaker to read ancient writings (most notably, the Bible). In contrast, try to read Shakespeare sometime.This "suspended animation" that the Hebrew language spent for a few millennia should have left it closer to its phonetic roots than other languages, not further, so I believe (although I do not know it as a fact), that Hebrew should be pretty easy to spell, relatively speaking, and most languages should be harder to spell. Anyone with more knowledge in the subject care to elaborate?
In most of the world's languages, the spelling of a word can almost always be correctly derived from the sound alone and vice versa.
??? Are you talking about French? I am sure there are other examples as well. I am a Hebrew speaker and I can tell you there is the same problem in Hebrew, as well, even if to a somewhat lesser degree. The thing is, that languages evolve (or whatever you want to call it) over time. That means that two letter (or letter combinations) that once sounded differently now sound the same. In Hebrew you have Tet and Taf which both sound nowadays like T, but originally the former was a T and the latter a Th. Once those letters sound the same, spelling mistakes ensue.
On the flip side, I am now trying to learn sign language, and our teacher once told us that deaf people never make spelling mistakes, probably because they don't have the "phonetic bias". They just learn how a word should be written, with no connection to how it sounds. For them 'ph' and 'f' are entirely different and they never mix them up.
I agree that the brain can do many amazing things, but there is a difference between reclaiming a lost function (like motor ability and sensation after a stroke) and learning a newability from scratch, an ability that the brain has not been exposed to in the critical period of infancy/early childhood. The brain can learn new stuff, but usually as an extension of something it has already learned. Experiments with people who were born deaf show the poor results you get with a cochlear implant if it implanted at a late age, as compared to an early age.
Again, I may be wrong and the brain may surprise us (and it sure could be a cool thing to check), but given both the evolutionary and the development problems, I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Talking needs both the suitable anatomy and the right "circuitry" (i.e. brain connection). While we may be able to implant a suitable larynx, the animal lacks the suitable brain connection for two reasons: 1) There was no evolutionary push to develop it, since there was no suitable anatomy (assuming the anatomy and neuroanatomy develop together). 2) There was no push for the brain circuits to develop in the animal's life, in the same way that a deaf person will not be able to hear properly, even with a hearing aid implantation (a cochlear implant), if he didn't hear anything in the first few years of his life.
Actually, there are some spore-forming bacteria, most notobaly the Bacillus and Clostridium Genera. The references are from Wikipedia beause it's easiest to find, but I also remember it from my Med studies, so it's a confirmed fact. Clostridium's tendency to from spores is why regular alcohol cleaning of the hands isn't enough for people with Clostridium Difficile infection; you have to clean your hands with soap and water.
The behavior falls short of the kind of 'farming' that more advanced animals do; ants, for example, nurture a single fungus species that no longer exists in the wild.
I agree that it is not exactly farming in the human sense of the word, but it is a behavior that promotes cultivation of an organism (the bacteria) for the benefit of another organism (the amoeba). It is definitely an instinctive behavior, but the same can be said of the ants' behavior. I think the use of the word farming was just to illustrate the fact that it is a more sophisticated behavior than stepping on a pile of shit.
Farming: "The practice of cultivating the land or raising stock". Well, they took their stock with them, the stock was raised (i.e. multiplied) so they have a source of food. Sound like farming. Of course, it's very basic and with no intelligence behind it (just instincts), but nevertheless, it's cool. Obviously, this behavior came about due to an evolutionary advantage, but so did the ant's behavior and any other behavior you see in nature. If it wouldn't have been advantageous from an evolutionary POV, it wouldn't have been inherited to the next generations.
The article doesn't talk about bacteria spores, but spores of the amoeba that have bacteria inside of them. Most of these bacteria are from kinds that the amoeba "likes" to eat, so when they get to a new location, they have their "favorite" food with them. The bacteria multiply, and the amoeba feasts. Somehow, it doesn't work so well when I go abroad and try to take raw material for my favorite food (20oz T-Bone, FYI). You can get more info here.
And a better question: they actually give a discount on a donation? I mean, if you don't want to donate, don't; and if you want to donate less than $100, then donate as much as you want. You actually need the incentive of adopt-a-star in order to donate?
Sir, Thank you very much for your enlightening response. I do not think your point was pedantic, and I very much enjoyed reading what you bothered to write. I agree that in a way, I have mixed up the concepts. Yes, we have a right to do whatever we want, with those liberties restricted by laws enacted by our ruling body (be it a dictatorship, an elected congress or whatnot). Perhaps my opinion should have been better phrased this way: By joining a society (e.g. USA), we have agreed to relinquish several rights, one of them is the use of technologies which have been given legal protection, whether by copyright or patents. We may not agree about the fairness of those laws, but while they are in force, we must abide by them.
Again thank you for you insightful reply, and I hope the Gods of Moderation will mod you correctly.
H.264 - I think you could use the word "transparent" in relation to its development process, or "consensus" in regards to the attitudes from different companies regarding it (at least, until VP8 came to town), but "open"? I don't think it stands up to any of the FOSS definitions of "open". VP8 - maybe it wasn't open 7 months ago, but it is now.
You don't have the right to use a technology developed by someone else (e.g. H.264) without paying. It's nice if you have such an option and I understand why you would prefer it, but there is no inherent right to it. Arguments like yours are what sometimes weaken the FOSS movement. People who do not understand what FOSS is all about think it is full of whiny people who want to get everything for free. Guess what? You (me, everybody) don't deserve to get a video codec for free. There are some things that we deserve to get for free, but video codecs are not one of them.
You could say that as a non-professional creator of videos (like the "David after Dentist" kid), you would be very happy to have a codec unencumbered by patents which you could use royalty-free, and thus you prefer WebM over H.264 due to this reason. You could even extend that to saying that you would support companies that push to more adoption of WebM throughout the Internet, due to the above reason. But "I should damn well..."? Sorry, it doesn't hold water.
Nobody expects privacy issues! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
I would suggest the following solution: Robot A - Prints report from computer on desk X. Robot B - Takes report from desk X to desk Y. Robot C - Scans report at desk Y. Robot D - Tells "The Boss" at desk Z that report is ready for his viewing online!
Now you get the benefits of digital information without firing any robot. Perfect!
Slashdot Mirror
It was a rhetorical question used to show a counter-example to the OP's argument. French is the epitome of phonetic-spelling incompatibility, IMHO.
Since I admit I am also not familiar with many other languages, I do not know if the "most" is correct or not. Both of us gave anecdotal evidence... which is usually enough by /. standards :)
Regarding Hebrew: the fact that it has been resurrected, is a fact that many say helped it retain many of its ancient characteristics, and is why it is easy for a modern Hebrew-speaker to read ancient writings (most notably, the Bible). In contrast, try to read Shakespeare sometime.This "suspended animation" that the Hebrew language spent for a few millennia should have left it closer to its phonetic roots than other languages, not further, so I believe (although I do not know it as a fact), that Hebrew should be pretty easy to spell, relatively speaking, and most languages should be harder to spell.
Anyone with more knowledge in the subject care to elaborate?
In most of the world's languages, the spelling of a word can almost always be correctly derived from the sound alone and vice versa.
???
Are you talking about French? I am sure there are other examples as well. I am a Hebrew speaker and I can tell you there is the same problem in Hebrew, as well, even if to a somewhat lesser degree. The thing is, that languages evolve (or whatever you want to call it) over time. That means that two letter (or letter combinations) that once sounded differently now sound the same. In Hebrew you have Tet and Taf which both sound nowadays like T, but originally the former was a T and the latter a Th.
Once those letters sound the same, spelling mistakes ensue.
I actually had to read the parent post twice to find the "acres". :) Evidently reading may not always help.
On the flip side, I am now trying to learn sign language, and our teacher once told us that deaf people never make spelling mistakes, probably because they don't have the "phonetic bias". They just learn how a word should be written, with no connection to how it sounds. For them 'ph' and 'f' are entirely different and they never mix them up.
I agree that the brain can do many amazing things, but there is a difference between reclaiming a lost function (like motor ability and sensation after a stroke) and learning a newability from scratch, an ability that the brain has not been exposed to in the critical period of infancy/early childhood.
The brain can learn new stuff, but usually as an extension of something it has already learned. Experiments with people who were born deaf show the poor results you get with a cochlear implant if it implanted at a late age, as compared to an early age.
Again, I may be wrong and the brain may surprise us (and it sure could be a cool thing to check), but given both the evolutionary and the development problems, I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Well, maybe with dolphins...?
There are some people where it should be legal to stop them from talking.
Talking needs both the suitable anatomy and the right "circuitry" (i.e. brain connection). While we may be able to implant a suitable larynx, the animal lacks the suitable brain connection for two reasons:
1) There was no evolutionary push to develop it, since there was no suitable anatomy (assuming the anatomy and neuroanatomy develop together).
2) There was no push for the brain circuits to develop in the animal's life, in the same way that a deaf person will not be able to hear properly, even with a hearing aid implantation (a cochlear implant), if he didn't hear anything in the first few years of his life.
EB - Erection Booster?!? Elevator Bomb? Elephant Ballast? Erotic Blower? Could be anything.
P.S. Don't Whoosh, I know what you meant.
No :)
Actually, there are some spore-forming bacteria, most notobaly the Bacillus and Clostridium Genera. The references are from Wikipedia beause it's easiest to find, but I also remember it from my Med studies, so it's a confirmed fact. Clostridium's tendency to from spores is why regular alcohol cleaning of the hands isn't enough for people with Clostridium Difficile infection; you have to clean your hands with soap and water.
From the summery:
The behavior falls short of the kind of 'farming' that more advanced animals do; ants, for example, nurture a single fungus species that no longer exists in the wild.
I agree that it is not exactly farming in the human sense of the word, but it is a behavior that promotes cultivation of an organism (the bacteria) for the benefit of another organism (the amoeba). It is definitely an instinctive behavior, but the same can be said of the ants' behavior.
I think the use of the word farming was just to illustrate the fact that it is a more sophisticated behavior than stepping on a pile of shit.
Yes, but if you don't starve to death, there is a better chance you will be able to reproduce.
Farming: "The practice of cultivating the land or raising stock".
Well, they took their stock with them, the stock was raised (i.e. multiplied) so they have a source of food. Sound like farming. Of course, it's very basic and with no intelligence behind it (just instincts), but nevertheless, it's cool. Obviously, this behavior came about due to an evolutionary advantage, but so did the ant's behavior and any other behavior you see in nature. If it wouldn't have been advantageous from an evolutionary POV, it wouldn't have been inherited to the next generations.
Let the pedantic discussion ensue!
Guess you haven't been attentive enough :)
The article doesn't talk about bacteria spores, but spores of the amoeba that have bacteria inside of them. Most of these bacteria are from kinds that the amoeba "likes" to eat, so when they get to a new location, they have their "favorite" food with them. The bacteria multiply, and the amoeba feasts.
Somehow, it doesn't work so well when I go abroad and try to take raw material for my favorite food (20oz T-Bone, FYI).
You can get more info here.
And a better question: they actually give a discount on a donation? I mean, if you don't want to donate, don't; and if you want to donate less than $100, then donate as much as you want. You actually need the incentive of adopt-a-star in order to donate?
Sir,
Thank you very much for your enlightening response. I do not think your point was pedantic, and I very much enjoyed reading what you bothered to write.
I agree that in a way, I have mixed up the concepts. Yes, we have a right to do whatever we want, with those liberties restricted by laws enacted by our ruling body (be it a dictatorship, an elected congress or whatnot).
Perhaps my opinion should have been better phrased this way: By joining a society (e.g. USA), we have agreed to relinquish several rights, one of them is the use of technologies which have been given legal protection, whether by copyright or patents. We may not agree about the fairness of those laws, but while they are in force, we must abide by them.
Again thank you for you insightful reply, and I hope the Gods of Moderation will mod you correctly.
H.264 - I think you could use the word "transparent" in relation to its development process, or "consensus" in regards to the attitudes from different companies regarding it (at least, until VP8 came to town), but "open"? I don't think it stands up to any of the FOSS definitions of "open".
VP8 - maybe it wasn't open 7 months ago, but it is now.
You don't have the right to use a technology developed by someone else (e.g. H.264) without paying. It's nice if you have such an option and I understand why you would prefer it, but there is no inherent right to it.
Arguments like yours are what sometimes weaken the FOSS movement. People who do not understand what FOSS is all about think it is full of whiny people who want to get everything for free. Guess what? You (me, everybody) don't deserve to get a video codec for free. There are some things that we deserve to get for free, but video codecs are not one of them.
You could say that as a non-professional creator of videos (like the "David after Dentist" kid), you would be very happy to have a codec unencumbered by patents which you could use royalty-free, and thus you prefer WebM over H.264 due to this reason. You could even extend that to saying that you would support companies that push to more adoption of WebM throughout the Internet, due to the above reason. But "I should damn well..."? Sorry, it doesn't hold water.
Not sure I like the idea of a vending machine putting me into a category based on how I look. Or based on anything, for that matter.
It's part of the progress in AI. By judging people on how they look, the machine is acting more human-like.
Nobody expects privacy issues! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
I would suggest the following solution:
Robot A - Prints report from computer on desk X.
Robot B - Takes report from desk X to desk Y.
Robot C - Scans report at desk Y.
Robot D - Tells "The Boss" at desk Z that report is ready for his viewing online!
Now you get the benefits of digital information without firing any robot. Perfect!
Because almost every thread eventually has a reference to Wikipedia in one of the comments. I think that counts as notable.
If you could mutate from a protozoa to a virus... well, we have a Noble prize at hand!