What I find most disturbing in your post is that you hint it would be a good thing to standardize on English (or any other widely spoken language, for that matter).
It absolutely would be a good thing.
And as to the rest, culture is independant of language, certainly there are influences but the English are identifiably English, Americans are identifiably American with different attitudes, different politics, different history and a single language. Culture is dynamic, not static, it varies from generation to generation in the same location never mind between different locations. If everyone spoke english, American would be a minority culture, french idioms would enter the language and everyone would be richer for it.
Except that English has been spoken in those parts of the world for centuries. Compare that with the attempt to implant the English language (through cultural items such as movies, music, etc) in countries where it has never been spoken natively, such as Japan, Germany, Spain or Brazil.
It has to start somewhere. Business, movies and music are a good start.
What worries me is: will the cultures of those countries be preserved after a long exposure to the English/American culture, which the attempt to standardize the world on the English language will undoubtedly bring? (read my reply to your original post.)
You'd rather they were anachronisms preserved in amber for your amusement? You don't think the members of those cultures deserve to benefit from the wider world?
No, to explore different forms means that the language is no longer English.
And Lewis Carroll made up nonsense words. Literary snobs would continue to explore from an english base.
If many cultures exist, there is more to talk about. If one has a single universal language, that limits the amount of information that can be communicated.
I'm sorry, but, bullshit. There are many cultures within the English language and communication between them is greatly facilitated by that one language. The world becomes a wider more exciting place.
Generations that face the loss of their language experience immense sadness, why wish that on them?
Because the alternative is isolation and decline. Despite your protestation, a single language is far better than the alternative.
Social Darwinism has been nearly universally recognized as a horrible philosophy for at least the past six decades.
And survival of the fittest is particularly harsh for the individual unable to adapt but guess what, that's the way the world works, even today in human society. You can either adapt and be happy or don't and die out. You can stick your head in the sand and try to pretend it isn't happening or you can embrace change.
Are you saying the Basques don't speak French or Spanish, and most probably English as well? There are some Gaelic speakers in Scotland too, about 60,000 they all speak english and the number is in inevitable decline just like Basque.
What you don't seem to be groking is that language is an integral part of people's identities.
No I do understand. As a Scotsman I completely understand it, in fact I probably understand it better than you and I reject it completely. I'm far, far better off speaking English rather than Gaelic or Scots. I'm still Scottish despite the fact that I speak English and Americans are still American despite the fact that they speak English, Australians are still Australian despite the fact that they speak English, even the Welsh are still Welsh despite the fact that they speak English.
Sorry but Esperanto is a politically correct joke, the numbers of speakers is infinitesimal and the network effect will ensure it remains that way. If anybody wanted to learn it they would have done by now. What will happen instead is that English will continue to spread, replacing all but a few other languages. And this is a good thing, the world will be a better place and we should encourage that spread, not attempt to hinder it.
I think we should also standardize all programming languages. Let's just use C++ and be done with it.
Computer languages are instructions to a computer, they aren't a human communication medium and so serve a different purpose. It's a strawman argument as is your comedy one.
The purpose of human language is communicate with other human beings and the more languages there are the more difficult that is. Let me make it clear. Languages make communication more difficult. Not easier. They are not beneficial. They are not good things unless you think additional barriers to communication are beneficial or additional ways of dividing us from them is beneficial.
I'd happily use Chinese if it was the only one, I don't really care which it is. However there are more english speakers than chinese speakers and written english is orders of magnitude simpler than written chinese.
Language may be employed in various ways. Not only to communicate, but also to obfuscate (as some Roma do with their use of Romani) or to explore new possibilities of form (conlangers, bits of Sandor Weores and James Joyce).
All of which can be done in english.
People aren't solitary individuals, they belong to larger societies that shape them. Understanding his language is part of understanding a person.
And if there was just one language, wouldn't it be much easier for everyone in the world to understand one another. Languages are barriers to communication, they don't aid understanding, they make it more difficult. The fewer languages there are in the world, the better off humanity will be.
Chinese's difficulty is mainly at the level of official orthography.
And yet the DNS uses written language which makes chinese less than ideal.
The Finno-Ugrian minorities of Russia, which are my chief object of study now, do not want their languages and literature "consigned to academia".
That'd be tough then. Neither nature nor economics are particularly sympathetic.
One finds in Russia that the locals who did "get over" the loss of their language also have higher rates of suicide, alcoholism, and existential crisis, while those who are fighting to preserve their language and feel a connection to the past have a much more positive outlook.
As I pointed out earlier, I'm glaswegian, my native language is long gone and I don't feel any loss. They will get over their nostalgia and will benefit hugely from the use of a common language.
The hilarious thing is that English is the only language out of these 13 to have no issues at all with only having the 37 dns characters.
Um, that'd be because it's a meritocracy rather than a democracy. The johnny come lately others couldn't be bothered inventing the system in the first place.
So why does every language have strata of slang and jargon that may well be incomprehensible to outsiders.
I'm glaswegian. I'm perfectly capable of being completely incomprehensible to all non glaswegian english speakers while still speaking english. I'm also perfectly capable of being completely comprehensible to virtually all other english speakers. Whether there's slang or not, english speakers can make themselves understood to other english speakers should they choose to, the basic language is the same. Not true with different languages.
Sure, and why don't we just all wear the same clothes, just because different styles or colours can be taken too seriously (on gang turf, for example)? And let's all eat the same food, no need for various cuisines when flavourless mush can keep us alive.
Strawman, neither of the examples are communication protocols which benefit from the network effect. Language is.
Languages make the world more interesting.
Sorry, irrelevant, and wrong. People make the world more interesting. It's nice to be able to talk to them.
And your claim that languages are "too difficult" is a peculiar opinion of some in first world nations.
Nope. Spanish, Italian, German or other romanic or germanic language I could probably pick up as required. Chinese is apparently particularly difficult.
And if all national tongues disappear in favour of some world language imposed by fiat, what would happen to all the literature written in them?
It would be consigned to academia, where all dead languages go.
You're right. It'd just be extraordinarily difficult to choose the letters you need. In fact, it would be easier and more reliable to simply to use the IP address.
"Yes, countries that use non-English characters should be able to interact with the rest of the world using their natural language."
Why... No really. You speak as if this is a good thing. Why should they be able to use their natural language rather than English? Why shouldn't they be restricted to a limited area of local language speaking people?
The reason the Internet is useful is because everyone speaks TCP/IP. Incompatible protocols are to be actively discouraged because they balkanise the network. Language is exactly the same. The reason the Internet is useful is because everyone speaks English, the more divided it becomes the less useful it becomes.
Languages are anachronisms, the only reason we have more than one is the physical distance between locations and difficulty travelling allowed them to evolve independently. Well that isn't the world we live in any more and the different languages actually make communication far more difficult now. They're no longer beneficial. So get rid of them, insist on a common language. The most popular happens to be English at the moment. I could live with Spanish, but for those of you about to suggest Chinese, read this before deciding: http://www.pinyin.info/readings/texts/moser.html
We should be using this opportunity to actively get rid of languages.
It would simplify everything. The ones who don't want to? Get stuffed.
Really, we should be actively culling the numbers of languages out there, they exist to facilitate communication, guess what, they're doing the opposite.
In 100 years, you will be forgotten. In 1000 years, your country will be forgotten. In 10000 years, your civilisation will be forgotten. In 100000 years, your species will be forgotten.
One thing you can absolutely count on is that you and everything you find familiar will be lost and forgotten. Nothing that you accomplish, no matter how famous, infamous or worthy will be remembered in 10,000 years.
There is only one contribution you can make which will have any lasting effect at all, and I'll let you work out what that is for yourself.
Keeping old hardware and software round is a non starter. I've been there, it's expensive and unreliable. Instead, convert the data into an open standardised format, ASCII if possible or something simple otherwise. Then put a process in place to move the data from old to new storage media, keep it on the live media.
Automate it if you can. There are also data lifecycle products which'll manage it for you.
Except that there's huge wage inflation in IT sector (and others) in India, China etc, on the order of 20% per year because they already have a tech shortage. Economics coming back to bite the offshorers.
Is that both China and India are already suffering from staff shortages. They can barely get enough unskilled labour, never mind highly skilled IT staff.
The severe problem of supply of staff will lead to soaring salaries of course... Simple market economics, restricted supply and strong demand. What you say? Salaries are not soaring? Doesn't sound like much of a shortage to me then.
It's one way to sell dumb fucks the same thing twice. Didn't you know that?
Look what you do is make trivial changes, break an existing API slightly, call the new version of whatever 2.0 and then sell it to the same muppets who bought 1.0. You double your revenue.
Up to £5,000 fine per offence against the Data Protection Act. 11 million records, 11 million offences. Directors are liable and the company is liable to cover any damages incurred, plus damages for distress inflicted.
Slashdot Mirror
It absolutely would be a good thing.
And as to the rest, culture is independant of language, certainly there are influences but the English are identifiably English, Americans are identifiably American with different attitudes, different politics, different history and a single language. Culture is dynamic, not static, it varies from generation to generation in the same location never mind between different locations. If everyone spoke english, American would be a minority culture, french idioms would enter the language and everyone would be richer for it.
The sooner the better.
It has to start somewhere. Business, movies and music are a good start.
You'd rather they were anachronisms preserved in amber for your amusement? You don't think the members of those cultures deserve to benefit from the wider world?
And Lewis Carroll made up nonsense words. Literary snobs would continue to explore from an english base.
I'm sorry, but, bullshit. There are many cultures within the English language and communication between them is greatly facilitated by that one language. The world becomes a wider more exciting place.
Because the alternative is isolation and decline. Despite your protestation, a single language is far better than the alternative.
And survival of the fittest is particularly harsh for the individual unable to adapt but guess what, that's the way the world works, even today in human society. You can either adapt and be happy or don't and die out. You can stick your head in the sand and try to pretend it isn't happening or you can embrace change.
Are you saying the Basques don't speak French or Spanish, and most probably English as well? There are some Gaelic speakers in Scotland too, about 60,000 they all speak english and the number is in inevitable decline just like Basque.
No I do understand. As a Scotsman I completely understand it, in fact I probably understand it better than you and I reject it completely. I'm far, far better off speaking English rather than Gaelic or Scots. I'm still Scottish despite the fact that I speak English and Americans are still American despite the fact that they speak English, Australians are still Australian despite the fact that they speak English, even the Welsh are still Welsh despite the fact that they speak English.
Sorry but Esperanto is a politically correct joke, the numbers of speakers is infinitesimal and the network effect will ensure it remains that way. If anybody wanted to learn it they would have done by now. What will happen instead is that English will continue to spread, replacing all but a few other languages. And this is a good thing, the world will be a better place and we should encourage that spread, not attempt to hinder it.
Computer languages are instructions to a computer, they aren't a human communication medium and so serve a different purpose. It's a strawman argument as is your comedy one.
The purpose of human language is communicate with other human beings and the more languages there are the more difficult that is. Let me make it clear. Languages make communication more difficult. Not easier. They are not beneficial. They are not good things unless you think additional barriers to communication are beneficial or additional ways of dividing us from them is beneficial.
I'd happily use Chinese if it was the only one, I don't really care which it is. However there are more english speakers than chinese speakers and written english is orders of magnitude simpler than written chinese.
All of which can be done in english.
And if there was just one language, wouldn't it be much easier for everyone in the world to understand one another. Languages are barriers to communication, they don't aid understanding, they make it more difficult. The fewer languages there are in the world, the better off humanity will be.
And yet the DNS uses written language which makes chinese less than ideal.
That'd be tough then. Neither nature nor economics are particularly sympathetic.
As I pointed out earlier, I'm glaswegian, my native language is long gone and I don't feel any loss. They will get over their nostalgia and will benefit hugely from the use of a common language.
Um, that'd be because it's a meritocracy rather than a democracy. The johnny come lately others couldn't be bothered inventing the system in the first place.
I'm glaswegian. I'm perfectly capable of being completely incomprehensible to all non glaswegian english speakers while still speaking english. I'm also perfectly capable of being completely comprehensible to virtually all other english speakers. Whether there's slang or not, english speakers can make themselves understood to other english speakers should they choose to, the basic language is the same. Not true with different languages.
Strawman, neither of the examples are communication protocols which benefit from the network effect. Language is.
Sorry, irrelevant, and wrong. People make the world more interesting. It's nice to be able to talk to them.
Nope. Spanish, Italian, German or other romanic or germanic language I could probably pick up as required. Chinese is apparently particularly difficult.
It would be consigned to academia, where all dead languages go.
Because it'll be the easiest way to be sure you're hitting the correct server.
You're right. It'd just be extraordinarily difficult to choose the letters you need. In fact, it would be easier and more reliable to simply to use the IP address.
"Yes, countries that use non-English characters should be able to interact with the rest of the world using their natural language."
Why... No really. You speak as if this is a good thing. Why should they be able to use their natural language rather than English? Why shouldn't they be restricted to a limited area of local language speaking people?
The reason the Internet is useful is because everyone speaks TCP/IP. Incompatible protocols are to be actively discouraged because they balkanise the network. Language is exactly the same. The reason the Internet is useful is because everyone speaks English, the more divided it becomes the less useful it becomes.
Languages are anachronisms, the only reason we have more than one is the physical distance between locations and difficulty travelling allowed them to evolve independently. Well that isn't the world we live in any more and the different languages actually make communication far more difficult now. They're no longer beneficial. So get rid of them, insist on a common language. The most popular happens to be English at the moment. I could live with Spanish, but for those of you about to suggest Chinese, read this before deciding: http://www.pinyin.info/readings/texts/moser.html
We should be using this opportunity to actively get rid of languages.
It would simplify everything. The ones who don't want to? Get stuffed.
Really, we should be actively culling the numbers of languages out there, they exist to facilitate communication, guess what, they're doing the opposite.
Why do you think they stopped using version numbers? It's obvious that Office 2003 is out of date. It's almost 4 years old.
Look.
In 100 years, you will be forgotten.
In 1000 years, your country will be forgotten.
In 10000 years, your civilisation will be forgotten.
In 100000 years, your species will be forgotten.
One thing you can absolutely count on is that you and everything you find familiar will be lost and forgotten. Nothing that you accomplish, no matter how famous, infamous or worthy will be remembered in 10,000 years.
There is only one contribution you can make which will have any lasting effect at all, and I'll let you work out what that is for yourself.
It's a process, not a product or solution.
Keeping old hardware and software round is a non starter. I've been there, it's expensive and unreliable. Instead, convert the data into an open standardised format, ASCII if possible or something simple otherwise. Then put a process in place to move the data from old to new storage media, keep it on the live media.
Automate it if you can. There are also data lifecycle products which'll manage it for you.
Any bets on how many billions the ID card scheme will cost? 30?
Wear an Atheist t-shirt.
http://www.atheists-online.com/
The WMD slogan is rather apt.
There's no afterlife or later judgement so they're far more likely to think about the soldiers they're sending off to die.
Anyway if they claimed to be humanist most christians would be completely unaware that it isn't a christian sect.
Actually it is.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.
and yes, it is coming to the US.
Except that there's huge wage inflation in IT sector (and others) in India, China etc, on the order of 20% per year because they already have a tech shortage. Economics coming back to bite the offshorers.
Is that both China and India are already suffering from staff shortages. They can barely get enough unskilled labour, never mind highly skilled IT staff.
r .html?ex=1301716800&en=49c0d472886e1f39&ei=5088&pa rtner=rssnyt&emc=rss
e.g.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/business/03labo
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15212647/
The severe problem of supply of staff will lead to soaring salaries of course... Simple market economics, restricted supply and strong demand. What you say? Salaries are not soaring? Doesn't sound like much of a shortage to me then.
It's one way to sell dumb fucks the same thing twice. Didn't you know that?
Look what you do is make trivial changes, break an existing API slightly, call the new version of whatever 2.0 and then sell it to the same muppets who bought 1.0. You double your revenue.
The directors are liable under the act anyway.
Up to £5,000 fine per offence against the Data Protection Act. 11 million records, 11 million offences. Directors are liable and the company is liable to cover any damages incurred, plus damages for distress inflicted.