Re:Does this work for non native speakers?
on
Can You Raed Tihs?
·
· Score: 1
More accurately, the chinese characters are "ideographs", which comes from "ideo" idea, and "graph" character.
Hiragana and Katakana are refered to as "syllabaries" in that the characters represent whole syllables, instead of individual sounds.
The latin, and cyrillic alphabets are refered to as alphabets alone, since they represent individual sounds.
I don't know if there's a SPECIFIC word for the Hebrew and Arabic alphabets, which don't generally indicate vowels, though modern device has made it useful.
The main problem with "jumbling" the syllabaries- I would imagine- would be that every single jumbling would create a different word, and you would distictly not notice that you've made a new word, unless it just happens to not match any existing word.
I'll try and give a short example of some japanese with syllabic shuffling:
ninhogo ga yoku demakisu ga, nihongo no kakatana to higarana no ishou ni jubunru koto ga denakii to omaimosu.
Hm.. seems ok to me... maybe someone who speaks Japanese could "confirm" my results? The biggest problem I had is that you had to have a four syllable word at minimum to make any sort of scramble at all.
The problem is phonetic writing usually is very explicit in it's break down of sounds. Most english speakers would be horrified to learn that their vowels are almost entirely impure.
long a:/ei/ long e:/i:/ long i:/ai/ ch:/tS/ j:/dZ/
etc... A number of the sounds, which Americans think are single sounds, are actually composed of multiple sounds.
That's almost why IPA is nearly useless, because it neglects the "phonemic" attitudes of the language, thus you can't see the relation of long a, vs short a.
You can get away with a bit of digraphing here. It turns out what English speakers think is one sound (or at least Americans) CH, is actually two: T-SH. So, you let C represent SH, then just tack a T on the front.
As for J as in judge, it's actually D followed by the sound in garaGe. So, we let J represent that sound, then just prefix with D for what was J. Thus, we have djudj, and garaj.
For your examples, you'd spell "change" as "tcandj", and "shout" as "cowt".
As for a post before me, you have the problem where plural endings can change, such that you would have "bagz" and "kaaks". Well, either we can either leave the spelling different, or since we generally take them as the same sound, we could use "x" (which of course, is also completely useless) for ending that change based on the voicedness of the previous letter. Thus, "bagzx" and "kaakzx", with "djumptx", and "thumbtx".
Thu tcoys uv "zx", and "tx" iz aktualee baastx on waht II lerntx in u lingwistikzx klas, that thu "reel" sowndzx involvtx, ahr aktualee/z/ and/t/, not/s/ and/d/ liik wee liik tou think.
This is generally a problem, but it is primarily something that only differs mainly in the vowels.
The idea would be to introduce consistant consonants, then kind of "let the vowels land where they may." The British already spell some things different that are pronounced the same: color vs colour, and spell somethings the same that are pronounced different: vase/vejs/ vs vase/vas/ (using ASCII IPA here)
This would make such spelling differences only significant for those words that are spoken differently. Otherwise, you'll just map the generally different vowels to their usage equivalent.
Thus, you'd have something like: kolor, vaas, and vahs. Using similar rules to the grandparent post, these would be fairly transparent.
Actually, some source code is loss-tolerant. Take C for example. In C the only significant whitespace is between any two elements of the set { identifiers, numbers }, and any that occurs in quotes, or character constants.
Also, comments can potentially discarded without effecting the compilation of the program.
Thus, you can take a program:
int main(void) {
printf("Hello World!\n");
return 0; }
And turn it into:
int main(void){printf("Hello World!\n");return 0;}
You've saved yourself space here. Now, here's the wierd thing, I wouldn't expect this to save any space after gzip'ing, or bzip'ing. I mean, after all, you're primarily just removing one character. But it turns out that on a particular file of mine:
And gzip is the same. This is thus a lossy compression for source code that doesn't actually modify the semantics or syntax of the program. (Of course, this won't work for language like Python.)
Yes, the result it unreadable, but then you just run indent, with your favorite coding-style setup, and viola! It's back to "normal", but different. Just like lossy compression is supposed to work.
*ahem* The PowerPC architecture wasn't extended to support 64-bit. It was the IBM POWER architecture that was "extended" to support 32-bit from 64-bit. The original PowerPC designs were designed to be executably compatible with the POWER architecture.
This is ENTIRELY unlike the x86 architecture, which has been extended to support 32-bit from 16-bit, and now is being extended YET AGAIN to support 64-bit from 32-bit from 16-bit.
I don't mean to be rude in any way, but what difference is this tool from using the Task Manager to set process affinity?
And anyways, it still doesn't fix the fundamental problem that WinXP (and probably earlier versions) likes to run single processes on as many CPUs as possible.
Yes, I do do this. It does help. But I need to do it everytime it starts. It's possible to set bits in the executable that will mask out some CPUs, but this alters the executable, and all the games with copy-protection/virus-protection, what-have-you, (Anarchy Online included here) will detect this as a "corruption" and "fix" the problem... or just not work.
Well.... I don't think they ENTIRELY dumped Motorola, after all, Motorola still has a part in the whole PowerPC group that initially designed the PowerPC.
But, I'm glad to see them ditched on the top line processor anyways.
PCs, and actually, more specifically Windows suck at SMP. I have a dual Pentium3 800MHz system, and Windows insists on splitting as much time as possible between the two CPUs. Thus, even if I have one and only one thread running (say, Anarchy Online) it still splits it onto two processors.
This achieves no speed advantage, and anyone who's taken any class talking about caches, would understand why it'd be generally good to leave the task on a single CPU for at least a second or two.
In Linux, my computer performs tons better, never "locks up" waiting on I/O. (Which is stupid of Windows, because I have two CPUs) And tasks generally split processors, but only occationally... as in, I can watch them wander back and forth.
I've still yet to compile my multi-threaded raytracer for Windows, so I personally can't compare the speed one way or the other for real.
Now, negatives such as all oxygen in a room suddenly moving to the corner of the room through random movements is a negative but it is not a likely negative.
Hey! I had a friend of a friend of my sister of my 2nd cousin that died from that!
Yes, because Caldera distributed Linux does not mean they gave up rights to any source code, which was illegally being added into the Linux kernel.
But that still doesn't change the fact that according OUR experts, this code was released by Caldera knowingly under the BSD license, which is in many ways "freer" than the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
More accurately, the chinese characters are "ideographs", which comes from "ideo" idea, and "graph" character.
Hiragana and Katakana are refered to as "syllabaries" in that the characters represent whole syllables, instead of individual sounds.
The latin, and cyrillic alphabets are refered to as alphabets alone, since they represent individual sounds.
I don't know if there's a SPECIFIC word for the Hebrew and Arabic alphabets, which don't generally indicate vowels, though modern device has made it useful.
The main problem with "jumbling" the syllabaries- I would imagine- would be that every single jumbling would create a different word, and you would distictly not notice that you've made a new word, unless it just happens to not match any existing word.
I'll try and give a short example of some japanese with syllabic shuffling:
ninhogo ga yoku demakisu ga, nihongo no kakatana to higarana no ishou ni jubunru koto ga denakii to omaimosu.
Hm.. seems ok to me... maybe someone who speaks Japanese could "confirm" my results? The biggest problem I had is that you had to have a four syllable word at minimum to make any sort of scramble at all.
The problem is phonetic writing usually is very explicit in it's break down of sounds. Most english speakers would be horrified to learn that their vowels are almost entirely impure.
/ei/ /i:/ /ai/ /tS/ /dZ/
long a:
long e:
long i:
ch:
j:
etc... A number of the sounds, which Americans think are single sounds, are actually composed of multiple sounds.
That's almost why IPA is nearly useless, because it neglects the "phonemic" attitudes of the language, thus you can't see the relation of long a, vs short a.
actuallyyou'dbereallysurprisedathowwellyoucanreadw ordswithoutspaces,exceptthestupidspacesthatslashdo tcodewillnodoubtputintothissothatitwillnotbreakthe tablesbyextendingtoolong.
s ar ytoreading,butthey'reactuallynotsonecessary,onceyo u'vegottenusedtojustinsertingthemyourselves.
i ll absolutelydestroydyslexicreaders.Ihaveafriendwho's dyslexic,andhemustsoundouteveryword,andcannotsight read.So,thewholeprinciplethatthisarticletalksabout wouldnotworkforhimatall.
it'sfunny,becausewethinkthatthespacesaresoneces
Butthis,justthesameasscramblingtheinnerlettersw
You can get away with a bit of digraphing here. It turns out what English speakers think is one sound (or at least Americans) CH, is actually two: T-SH. So, you let C represent SH, then just tack a T on the front.
/z/ and /t/, not /s/ and /d/ liik wee liik tou think.
As for J as in judge, it's actually D followed by the sound in garaGe. So, we let J represent that sound, then just prefix with D for what was J. Thus, we have djudj, and garaj.
For your examples, you'd spell "change" as "tcandj", and "shout" as "cowt".
As for a post before me, you have the problem where plural endings can change, such that you would have "bagz" and "kaaks". Well, either we can either leave the spelling different, or since we generally take them as the same sound, we could use "x" (which of course, is also completely useless) for ending that change based on the voicedness of the previous letter. Thus, "bagzx" and "kaakzx", with "djumptx", and "thumbtx".
Thu tcoys uv "zx", and "tx" iz aktualee baastx on waht II lerntx in u lingwistikzx klas, that thu "reel" sowndzx involvtx, ahr aktualee
This is generally a problem, but it is primarily something that only differs mainly in the vowels.
/vejs/ vs vase /vas/ (using ASCII IPA here)
The idea would be to introduce consistant consonants, then kind of "let the vowels land where they may." The British already spell some things different that are pronounced the same: color vs colour, and spell somethings the same that are pronounced different: vase
This would make such spelling differences only significant for those words that are spoken differently. Otherwise, you'll just map the generally different vowels to their usage equivalent.
Thus, you'd have something like: kolor, vaas, and vahs. Using similar rules to the grandparent post, these would be fairly transparent.
Makes sense... but still the point remains, that there is such a thing as lossy compression for C code.
Also, comments can potentially discarded without effecting the compilation of the program.
Thus, you can take a program:And turn it into:You've saved yourself space here. Now, here's the wierd thing, I wouldn't expect this to save any space after gzip'ing, or bzip'ing. I mean, after all, you're primarily just removing one character. But it turns out that on a particular file of mine:
-rw-r--r-- 1 dfoesch staff 9184 Sep 9 19:00 navajo.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 dfoesch staff 3213 Sep 9 18:58 navajo.c.bz2
-rw-r--r-- 1 dfoesch staff 1832 Sep 9 18:58 navajo.c.nospaces.bz2
And gzip is the same. This is thus a lossy compression for source code that doesn't actually modify the semantics or syntax of the program. (Of course, this won't work for language like Python.)
Yes, the result it unreadable, but then you just run indent, with your favorite coding-style setup, and viola! It's back to "normal", but different. Just like lossy compression is supposed to work.
Well put, but in any case, it's definately not extended to support 64-bit, but supported it from the start.
*ahem* The PowerPC architecture wasn't extended to support 64-bit. It was the IBM POWER architecture that was "extended" to support 32-bit from 64-bit. The original PowerPC designs were designed to be executably compatible with the POWER architecture.
This is ENTIRELY unlike the x86 architecture, which has been extended to support 32-bit from 16-bit, and now is being extended YET AGAIN to support 64-bit from 32-bit from 16-bit.
They're already there, why do you think Apple had to get the G5 from IBM?
I was going to say something related to reinvention and tires.
But your joke is much more humourous.
Hm... well, they say it's better, I'll give it a go, and let you know.
I don't mean to be rude in any way, but what difference is this tool from using the Task Manager to set process affinity?
And anyways, it still doesn't fix the fundamental problem that WinXP (and probably earlier versions) likes to run single processes on as many CPUs as possible.
Yes, I do do this. It does help. But I need to do it everytime it starts. It's possible to set bits in the executable that will mask out some CPUs, but this alters the executable, and all the games with copy-protection/virus-protection, what-have-you, (Anarchy Online included here) will detect this as a "corruption" and "fix" the problem... or just not work.
Oh, I'm a Mac fan, I love my Mac, and wouldn't trade it for the world.
My point was that nearly everyone one Slashdot is going to complain about why Apple's benchmark is unfair.
And the other half is going to say they don't really care about the benchmarks, because they've made up their mind anyways.
Well.... I don't think they ENTIRELY dumped Motorola, after all, Motorola still has a part in the whole PowerPC group that initially designed the PowerPC.
But, I'm glad to see them ditched on the top line processor anyways.
Well, Tom's Hardware constantly reviews and provides benchmarks for hardware that isn't shipping yet.
Do we give HIM crap for doing it? No, we reserve that right just for Apple.
PCs, and actually, more specifically Windows suck at SMP. I have a dual Pentium3 800MHz system, and Windows insists on splitting as much time as possible between the two CPUs. Thus, even if I have one and only one thread running (say, Anarchy Online) it still splits it onto two processors.
This achieves no speed advantage, and anyone who's taken any class talking about caches, would understand why it'd be generally good to leave the task on a single CPU for at least a second or two.
In Linux, my computer performs tons better, never "locks up" waiting on I/O. (Which is stupid of Windows, because I have two CPUs) And tasks generally split processors, but only occationally... as in, I can watch them wander back and forth.
I've still yet to compile my multi-threaded raytracer for Windows, so I personally can't compare the speed one way or the other for real.
Except my Anarchy Online! :(
I have just about every game that I want to play on Linux and Mac, but I still have to have Windows for my AO Fix.
My friend has a G4, and there's a lot of space in that one, too. Apple designs tend to very often have very open designs with pleanty of empty space.
These benchmarks don't matter, everyone on Slashdot is just going to say that they're fixed anyways. That or irrelevant.
Hey! I had a friend of a friend of my sister of my 2nd cousin that died from that!
"Setec Astronomy, Too Many Secrets, Comatose Sentry, Taco Semen Story"
OOo... "I want World Peace" "What? We're the US Government, we don't do that!"
Of course, the best one, was "I want her number." "You can have anything in the world, and you want my number?"
I gotta buy that movie... it's great.
When MS Word started being able to export HTML.
Yes, because Caldera distributed Linux does not mean they gave up rights to any source code, which was illegally being added into the Linux kernel.
But that still doesn't change the fact that according OUR experts, this code was released by Caldera knowingly under the BSD license, which is in many ways "freer" than the GPL.