I'm the opposite. I generally seem to read English at a much faster rate, even though Chinese is supposed to be my "first language". It might have something to do with "practice". The amount of English I read is probably an order of magnitude greater than Chinese.
It also might have something to do with the content though. It feels like Chinese fiction is easier on my eyes, whereas English is better for technical and (complex) argumentative writing.
There is another, arguably better, system called Zhuyin, that is less confusing because the phonetic symbols come from actual Chinese words that are written with only a few strokes
Not true. Chinese is my first language, and since I'm not Taiwanese, I still have no friggin idea how to pronounce those Zhuyin symbols. They are not actual Chinese words (characters).
But I think the GP's claim is still valid. Using pronunciation based writing systems for writing Chinese would isolate the various spoken dialects because the pronunciation between them are not quite legible to each other, but either simplified or traditional Chinese works as a common, mutually intelligible form.
Chinese has a long tradition of writing differently than speaking.
It was quite recent (early 20th century) where there were movement by Chinese intellectuals to "write what you speak" (which was largely successful) -- but the tradition still sort of lives on where the spoken language seems to change faster than the written language, and the form is still slightly different. The spoken language is sometimes a bit more wordy than the written language too, perhaps in part because of the need to disambiguate the homophones.
Besides, it would be impossible to easily read any Chinese texts written more than a hundred years ago if you just knew the romanized pronunciations. The issue with *writing* them is sort of becoming a moot point, with the advent of computers. The standard way to type Chinese is using pronunciation based input methods.
No matter what you say, they'll take the most insignificant thing and say "See! See! This tiny little bit right here is wrong! You spelled the product name wrong! That means everything you said must also be wrong!"
Half of your post in #44780265 is wrong, and basically all of your post in #44780073 is wrong, except the parts where you start making your own opinions based on the wrong information. Is it not fair for people to point that out? If I made a post that was half full of misinformation, I would expect to be called out for that.
Perhaps you would like to think that although all your premises (the most insignificant thing!) are wrong, your conclusions (the important part, yea?) are still correct. But if that is so, why bother to attempt to make an reasoned argument in the first place? Just click the "Post Anonymously" button and flame away!
Samsung demonstrated what a complete and utter fallacy it was to for companies like Nokia and RIM not to use Android with the argument "you can't differentiate in the Android ecosystem", quite obviously Samsung proved you can very much differentiate pretty much on hardware alone.
They apparently didn't only differentiate on hardware alone:
Objective C is actually a great language. It combines the speed of C with the dynamism of the Objective C runtime, and you can mix C++ into it if you want. That gives you a *lot* of options, when you need to balance performance vs type safety vs speed of development, etc.
The foundation libraries may be a bit wordy for some people's tastes, but the language itself is quite solid.
If you meant to talk about the downsides of Xcode, well, that's totally another story...
So instead of fearing snipers, it is better to fear the rockets from fighter jets miles up in the sky?
Or, is it better to fear various curable diseases from killing your child instead of the snipers? I don't see the US spending trillions of dollars on these causes. Given the track record in Afghan and Iraq, it's pretty obvious that spending a few trillion on curing diseases like malaria, HIV, etc, even if unsuccessful, is probably better than spending trillions to make bad political situations worse.
Hong Kong native here. I'd be pretty shocked if the average person here does not know what a Key Lime Pie is (if translated to Cantonese, the local dialect here) . Most people probably tried it before. People here dig western desserts. The existence of a (stub) wikipedia entry of key lime pie in Cantonese (as opposed to standard Chinese) corroborates my claim.
I personally avoid desserts (and sweet things in general, because I prefer savory foods), but I think I tried some key lime pie before.
Your general point probably holds though, but I'm not sure KitKat has better penetrated those markets compared to the Floridan pie...
In some languages the getopt() equivalent is pretty readable.
It's sort of unfortunate that after so many years, plain C is still the de facto standard language for Unix-alike systems. The limitations of the language (that it is designed with machine implementations in mind, instead of with human readability) makes it necessary to document more things than otherwise would have been in an ideal (/perfect) world.
I remember seeing this on Slashdot many years ago. It was quite a big news back then, and there were multiple articles and commentary on this (just search).
What the US does to other people in other countries is another matter, ranging from droning people we can't otherwise reach to the Gitmo.
As far as GITMO goes, what we have going on there are people , only some of whom WERE dangerous when we picked them up but many of whom ARE NOW dangerous (uh..duh.) and therefore are being detained. It's truly Kafakaesque but then that's what fascists like the above listed names inevitably create in their wake.
Hmm, I dunno.... This does seem to prove TFA's point....
If you are considered a threat to national security, you can be taken off the street in pretty much any nation. The only thing that's unusual about the US is that this didn't use to happen here. And the sooner we return that exceptional status among nations, the better.
In most civilized nations, they have to provide a fair (and open) trial, observe due process, and basically respect basic human rights, even if you're a threat to national security. There are international treaties on this. It is not exceptional.
It depends. If I knew a person will actually stick fingers in his ears and not listen, it's almost certainly childish behavior on his part. People with better people skills and *finesse* would have much better ways to handle the situation.
Or maybe he intended to just cash out and leave without putting up with the bullshit, and still not be seen as breaking the terms of the deal....
As for new CEOs, well, supposedly the CEO can change the corporate culture and it's "song", but sometimes it takes great effort to do so, and when they fail, they get replaced. It's easier to work against the rules when you're at the top, but it's not necessarily a trivial task.
Are you guys seriously arguing over hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) statistics, and whether those hypothetical data can be obtained at all?
Except this, of course:
When it is all said and done, while there are people who have died in cross country auto accidents who would not have perished if they had flown, the likelihood of those persons who have died choosing to have driven cross country because of 9/11 is statically very, very small.
Apparently you're pulling that very very small likelihood out of your ass.
It's a grand plan of privatizing the "public" schools. In fact, a lot of the "good" schools have privatized under this plan. Sometimes I wonder whether the Hong Kong government and policy makers actually intend to actively import all the worst policies from America...
I wonder how many people ate pieces of plastic decorating a wedding cake, and pieces of plastic stuck to the refrigerator.
Did we ban them?
Anyway, I'll make a mental note that if I ever release a physical consumer product, I'll make sure to add a warning against putting it on a wedding cake.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm the opposite. I generally seem to read English at a much faster rate, even though Chinese is supposed to be my "first language". It might have something to do with "practice". The amount of English I read is probably an order of magnitude greater than Chinese.
It also might have something to do with the content though. It feels like Chinese fiction is easier on my eyes, whereas English is better for technical and (complex) argumentative writing.
There is another, arguably better, system called Zhuyin, that is less confusing because the phonetic symbols come from actual Chinese words that are written with only a few strokes
Not true. Chinese is my first language, and since I'm not Taiwanese, I still have no friggin idea how to pronounce those Zhuyin symbols. They are not actual Chinese words (characters).
Pedantic.
But I think the GP's claim is still valid. Using pronunciation based writing systems for writing Chinese would isolate the various spoken dialects because the pronunciation between them are not quite legible to each other, but either simplified or traditional Chinese works as a common, mutually intelligible form.
Chinese has a long tradition of writing differently than speaking.
It was quite recent (early 20th century) where there were movement by Chinese intellectuals to "write what you speak" (which was largely successful) -- but the tradition still sort of lives on where the spoken language seems to change faster than the written language, and the form is still slightly different. The spoken language is sometimes a bit more wordy than the written language too, perhaps in part because of the need to disambiguate the homophones.
Besides, it would be impossible to easily read any Chinese texts written more than a hundred years ago if you just knew the romanized pronunciations. The issue with *writing* them is sort of becoming a moot point, with the advent of computers. The standard way to type Chinese is using pronunciation based input methods.
The Neanderthals were there first. I, for one...
No matter what you say, they'll take the most insignificant thing and say "See! See! This tiny little bit right here is wrong! You spelled the product name wrong! That means everything you said must also be wrong!"
Half of your post in #44780265 is wrong, and basically all of your post in #44780073 is wrong, except the parts where you start making your own opinions based on the wrong information. Is it not fair for people to point that out? If I made a post that was half full of misinformation, I would expect to be called out for that.
Perhaps you would like to think that although all your premises (the most insignificant thing!) are wrong, your conclusions (the important part, yea?) are still correct. But if that is so, why bother to attempt to make an reasoned argument in the first place? Just click the "Post Anonymously" button and flame away!
Samsung demonstrated what a complete and utter fallacy it was to for companies like Nokia and RIM not to use Android with the argument "you can't differentiate in the Android ecosystem", quite obviously Samsung proved you can very much differentiate pretty much on hardware alone.
They apparently didn't only differentiate on hardware alone:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/04/16/170233/samsung-accused-of-paying-for-negative-htc-reviews
Objective C is actually a great language. It combines the speed of C with the dynamism of the Objective C runtime, and you can mix C++ into it if you want. That gives you a *lot* of options, when you need to balance performance vs type safety vs speed of development, etc.
The foundation libraries may be a bit wordy for some people's tastes, but the language itself is quite solid.
If you meant to talk about the downsides of Xcode, well, that's totally another story...
Succinct proof.
So instead of fearing snipers, it is better to fear the rockets from fighter jets miles up in the sky?
Or, is it better to fear various curable diseases from killing your child instead of the snipers? I don't see the US spending trillions of dollars on these causes. Given the track record in Afghan and Iraq, it's pretty obvious that spending a few trillion on curing diseases like malaria, HIV, etc, even if unsuccessful, is probably better than spending trillions to make bad political situations worse.
Hong Kong native here. I'd be pretty shocked if the average person here does not know what a Key Lime Pie is (if translated to Cantonese, the local dialect here) . Most people probably tried it before. People here dig western desserts. The existence of a (stub) wikipedia entry of key lime pie in Cantonese (as opposed to standard Chinese) corroborates my claim.
I personally avoid desserts (and sweet things in general, because I prefer savory foods), but I think I tried some key lime pie before.
Your general point probably holds though, but I'm not sure KitKat has better penetrated those markets compared to the Floridan pie...
"KitKat" does sound much more catchy though.
I wonder why this news never made /. If anything, it's incredibly noteworthy from both an architectural and a security standpoint.
uh... http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/09/03/0117228/google-play-services-supplants-android-as-googles-platform
In some languages the getopt() equivalent is pretty readable.
It's sort of unfortunate that after so many years, plain C is still the de facto standard language for Unix-alike systems. The limitations of the language (that it is designed with machine implementations in mind, instead of with human readability) makes it necessary to document more things than otherwise would have been in an ideal (/perfect) world.
I'm sure I've broken at least your copyright laws
It already happened. It's not exactly news.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._ElcomSoft_and_Sklyarov
I remember seeing this on Slashdot many years ago. It was quite a big news back then, and there were multiple articles and commentary on this (just search).
What the US does to other people in other countries is another matter, ranging from droning people we can't otherwise reach to the Gitmo.
As far as GITMO goes, what we have going on there are people , only some of whom WERE dangerous when we picked them up but many of whom ARE NOW dangerous (uh..duh.) and therefore are being detained. It's truly Kafakaesque but then that's what fascists like the above listed names inevitably create in their wake.
Hmm, I dunno.... This does seem to prove TFA's point....
If you are considered a threat to national security, you can be taken off the street in pretty much any nation. The only thing that's unusual about the US is that this didn't use to happen here. And the sooner we return that exceptional status among nations, the better.
In most civilized nations, they have to provide a fair (and open) trial, observe due process, and basically respect basic human rights, even if you're a threat to national security. There are international treaties on this. It is not exceptional.
the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"
It depends. If I knew a person will actually stick fingers in his ears and not listen, it's almost certainly childish behavior on his part. People with better people skills and *finesse* would have much better ways to handle the situation.
Or maybe he intended to just cash out and leave without putting up with the bullshit, and still not be seen as breaking the terms of the deal....
As for new CEOs, well, supposedly the CEO can change the corporate culture and it's "song", but sometimes it takes great effort to do so, and when they fail, they get replaced. It's easier to work against the rules when you're at the top, but it's not necessarily a trivial task.
One the fatality rate hasn't increased 300 and has actually dropped
Citation needed. Where are you getting your data?
Your argument may make *you* safer, but probably won't significantly affect the average traffic risk.
The average driver is still clumped together, because they generally don't exercise the option to floor the pedal and escape the clump.
Are you guys seriously arguing over hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) statistics, and whether those hypothetical data can be obtained at all?
Except this, of course:
When it is all said and done, while there are people who have died in cross country auto accidents who would not have perished if they had flown, the likelihood of those persons who have died choosing to have driven cross country because of 9/11 is statically very, very small.
Apparently you're pulling that very very small likelihood out of your ass.
Don't worry. The OP's rant probably applies to most places.
Sadly, it's changing in recent years. I'm sure you have heard about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Subsidy_Scheme ?
It's a grand plan of privatizing the "public" schools. In fact, a lot of the "good" schools have privatized under this plan. Sometimes I wonder whether the Hong Kong government and policy makers actually intend to actively import all the worst policies from America...
I wonder how many people ate pieces of plastic decorating a wedding cake, and pieces of plastic stuck to the refrigerator.
Did we ban them?
Anyway, I'll make a mental note that if I ever release a physical consumer product, I'll make sure to add a warning against putting it on a wedding cake.
Pentagon Sets Stage for U.S. to Respond to Computer Sabotage With Military Force
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355623135782718.html