There are a few reasons why Mandarin will not replace English as the "international" language. Mandarin is a tonal language, which makes it much harder to learn, because the tone in which you speak changes the actual meanings of words (in Mandarin there are 4 tones and one neutral tone). In a non-tonal language (e.g. English), while you might determine the emotional state of the speaker through tone, the meanings of the words spoken do not change.
Think about how broken someone's English can be and yet still be understood. Even with an incredibly thick and obnoxious French accent, a fluent English speaker will still be able to understand them. This is far less true in tonal languages.
Then, of course, there is the written language. English, being a phonetic language, means that all words are comprised of the same 26 characters. Even if you come across a completely new word, you can determine pronunciation fairly easily, and depending on the word you may even be able to determine meaning (root word + suffix/prefix etc.). Even if the word is misspelled, communication is still possible (i.e. phonetic languages have parity, in a way). However in Mandarin there are thousands of different characters, and slight variations in how they are written (or maybe drawn?) completely change the meaning. Even for native speakers, it takes years and years of study to master writing and reading in Mandarin.
For fast and effective communication, especially between speakers of different fluency, phonetic/non-tonal languages are the way to go, and Mandarin is neither of these.
The authority of science is based on the trust that is vested in the peer review.
I am speaking about science the method, where the only "authority" is empirical evidence gained through repeatable experiments. The authority you are speaking of is the institution (or community) of science.
Peer review is not a fundamental part of the scientific method. You are more than welcome to distrust all peer reviewed research and attempt to repeat or falsify the results yourself. Strictly speaking, the scientific method demands that we do just that, but we generally don't because it's highly impractical.
The hypothesis that peer reviewed science is true science, is falsified if even only 1 example can be found in which the theory isn't true.
I'm not sure what you mean by "true" science, but it seems that you have switched to another common meaning of the word, which is science the accepted body of knowledge. Just because something has been peer reviewed doesn't mean it automatically becomes a part of scientific knowledge. In other words, you're right, the hypothesis is false, but it's not the revelation you think it is.
In fact, if we're truly practicing anything resembling science, we can have only one hypothesis in this situation: all peer-reviewed research may have been affected by faulty peer review processes.
Ah yes, the oft forgotten rule of science; we are only allowed to have one hypothesis. Oh wait, you just made that up.
Over 100 papers were allegedly improperly reviewed in this one journal alone. The only assumption we can realistically make is that this problem is far more widespread than we may believe.
This is like saying that since someone is found to be a serial murderer, we should assume that their neighbors are also serial killers. Even if we have no actual murders to tie them to, the only assumption we can realistically make is that this problem is far more widespread than we may believe.
So you have your hypothesis, that's fine. The next step is to find evidence that supports it, which comes before you assert that your hypothesis is the One To Rule Them All.
After the election, we started to hear "the Russians hacked the elections"
Unless of course you were in the FBI, in which case you've been investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government since July 2016.
If Clinton had won, Obama could have withdrawn Garland's appointment before the Senate could hold a vote. Especially considering they hadn't had any hearings yet.
When I say systematic destruction, I don't just mean that their culture etc. is in decline due to broad sociological trends, but that there were active government policies where the goal was systematic destruction. Look up the Residential Schools system if you really care to know more. If it doesn't make you sick to your stomach there is something wrong with you.
What First Nations people get from the government is nothing like UBI. It's a much more complicated and insane system than that. Not to mention the generations of systematic destruction of their culture, language, and family structure through things like the Residential Schools system (which is, in all seriousness, the stuff of nightmares).
The national inquiry is about the rate at which they (particularly women) are disproportionately the victims of murder and abduction. It's primarily First Nations people (among others) who have been asking for such an investigation for the last few years.
Without reading Wikipedia, I can tell you exactly what a catalyst is, at least in the realm of chemistry. It is a substance or material which provides an intermediate state to a chemical reaction, lowering the overall energy required by that process and increasing the reaction rate.
Most chemical reactions have an intermediate stage, which is not always shown when we right the simplified reaction. For example, we might write a chemical reaction like this:
A + 2B => Z
What this implies is that 3 (1 A and 2 B) molecules "collide" with each other at the exact same instant, reacting to form Z. A collision such as this (even with many many particles) is so unlikely to occur that for practical purposes it basically never happens. In reality there is an intermediate state, i.e. the reaction takes place in more than one stage, perhaps like this:
A + B => Y Y + B => Z or A + 2B => Y + B => Z
^intermediate state
See, here we don't have the problem of more than 2 molecules colliding at a time: A collides with B, producing Y, then Y collides with another B, producing Z.
Often the intermediate state is at a higher energy than the initial state (i.e. you must introduce energy into the system*). Catalysts provide alternative intermediate states (C = catalyst):
A + C => X X + B => W W + B => Z + C (Note: in this process our catalyst is completely recycled**) or A + 2B + C => X + 2B => W + B => Z + C
^----------------^intermediate states
Although we have added an extra step to our overall reaction, it (presumably) takes far less energy to reach these states than the original state in the first reaction.
*This is true for all non-spontaneous reactions, whether they are exothermic or endothermic. This is why simply putting methane and oxygen together is not necessarily enough to produce combustion; you must introduce a source of energy, like a spark.
**This is not always the case, but an example showing this is much more complicated (actually any real-world example is very complicated, which is why I didn't bother).
Catalysts are not necessarily used up in a process though. They may be completely recycled as part of the process, or they may have to be "scrubbed' periodically as they saturate.
However, TFA doesn't make it clear which is the case.
LibreOffice is actually what I use, because I don't have to use it very often (10 times per year). For that, I don't want to pay for MS Office and I have moved away from piracy as I've gotten older. I probably still have a cracked Office 2007 on a DVD around here somewhere...
Honestly, it's fine as long as you don't have to use it that often, e.g. when someone insists on sending you.doc/.docx files. But I imagine the city of Munich has to use it quite a bit more than I do. If Office-related stuff is a regular part of your job, invest in MS. Frankly, it's one of the few things they do better than everyone else.
I don't see what relevance Notepad.exe has to this conversation.
No, C: if the WiFi circuit isn't powered, there is no MAC address sent, period. If you need to confirm that WiFi is truly off, just compare the power consumption of the phone on vs. off.
Good luck with that. The WiFi is such a piddling amount of the draw that it may not even show up in the breakdown at all.
unlimited adjective
not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent.
"the range of possible adaptations was unlimited" synonyms: inexhaustible, limitless, illimitable, boundless, immeasurable, incalculable, untold, infinite, endless, bottomless, never-ending
Exactly. We are already applying a less-than-literal definition of the word "unlimited" to this particular situation. Discussing to what degree the word is less-than-literal is to engage in a pissing contest.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a few reasons why Mandarin will not replace English as the "international" language. Mandarin is a tonal language, which makes it much harder to learn, because the tone in which you speak changes the actual meanings of words (in Mandarin there are 4 tones and one neutral tone). In a non-tonal language (e.g. English), while you might determine the emotional state of the speaker through tone, the meanings of the words spoken do not change.
Think about how broken someone's English can be and yet still be understood. Even with an incredibly thick and obnoxious French accent, a fluent English speaker will still be able to understand them. This is far less true in tonal languages.
Then, of course, there is the written language. English, being a phonetic language, means that all words are comprised of the same 26 characters. Even if you come across a completely new word, you can determine pronunciation fairly easily, and depending on the word you may even be able to determine meaning (root word + suffix/prefix etc.). Even if the word is misspelled, communication is still possible (i.e. phonetic languages have parity, in a way). However in Mandarin there are thousands of different characters, and slight variations in how they are written (or maybe drawn?) completely change the meaning. Even for native speakers, it takes years and years of study to master writing and reading in Mandarin.
For fast and effective communication, especially between speakers of different fluency, phonetic/non-tonal languages are the way to go, and Mandarin is neither of these.
If the Latinos are bilingual and most of the rest of the population speaks English... then English is still the dominant language.
The authority of science is based on the trust that is vested in the peer review.
I am speaking about science the method, where the only "authority" is empirical evidence gained through repeatable experiments. The authority you are speaking of is the institution (or community) of science.
Peer review is not a fundamental part of the scientific method. You are more than welcome to distrust all peer reviewed research and attempt to repeat or falsify the results yourself. Strictly speaking, the scientific method demands that we do just that, but we generally don't because it's highly impractical.
The hypothesis that peer reviewed science is true science, is falsified if even only 1 example can be found in which the theory isn't true.
I'm not sure what you mean by "true" science, but it seems that you have switched to another common meaning of the word, which is science the accepted body of knowledge. Just because something has been peer reviewed doesn't mean it automatically becomes a part of scientific knowledge. In other words, you're right, the hypothesis is false, but it's not the revelation you think it is.
If we weren't biased and flawed, we wouldn't need the process of science at all. Every anecdotal observation could be implicitly trusted.
What you are witnessing is the iterative scientific process attempting to correct for the flaws and biases.
Wouldn't 'doing their job' have meant that these would have been detected right away?
No, because this is a partially iterative process which requires feedback from past mistakes to correct itself.
In fact, if we're truly practicing anything resembling science, we can have only one hypothesis in this situation: all peer-reviewed research may have been affected by faulty peer review processes.
Ah yes, the oft forgotten rule of science; we are only allowed to have one hypothesis. Oh wait, you just made that up.
Over 100 papers were allegedly improperly reviewed in this one journal alone. The only assumption we can realistically make is that this problem is far more widespread than we may believe.
This is like saying that since someone is found to be a serial murderer, we should assume that their neighbors are also serial killers. Even if we have no actual murders to tie them to, the only assumption we can realistically make is that this problem is far more widespread than we may believe.
So you have your hypothesis, that's fine. The next step is to find evidence that supports it, which comes before you assert that your hypothesis is the One To Rule Them All.
After the election, we started to hear "the Russians hacked the elections"
Unless of course you were in the FBI, in which case you've been investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government since July 2016.
the Piece of Shit party that wants to call everybody they dont agree with names
I think it would be ironic if we were all made of iron.
Isn't it built into the Friends & Foes system thing that I've never used?
It was absolutely politically smart, but it was not in any way reasonable. It shows a complete lack of statesmanship, putting party before country.
If Clinton had won, Obama could have withdrawn Garland's appointment before the Senate could hold a vote. Especially considering they hadn't had any hearings yet.
When I say systematic destruction, I don't just mean that their culture etc. is in decline due to broad sociological trends, but that there were active government policies where the goal was systematic destruction. Look up the Residential Schools system if you really care to know more. If it doesn't make you sick to your stomach there is something wrong with you.
What First Nations people get from the government is nothing like UBI. It's a much more complicated and insane system than that. Not to mention the generations of systematic destruction of their culture, language, and family structure through things like the Residential Schools system (which is, in all seriousness, the stuff of nightmares).
The national inquiry is about the rate at which they (particularly women) are disproportionately the victims of murder and abduction. It's primarily First Nations people (among others) who have been asking for such an investigation for the last few years.
Honestly, the only place I hear about Rust is people complaining about it on /..
I agree, we should spend the tax money on those blue collar workers who have been put out of their jobs. Maybe you should write a Manifesto?
Rather spend my tax money on this than building fighter jets that can't fly in the rain.
Without reading Wikipedia, I can tell you exactly what a catalyst is, at least in the realm of chemistry. It is a substance or material which provides an intermediate state to a chemical reaction, lowering the overall energy required by that process and increasing the reaction rate.
Most chemical reactions have an intermediate stage, which is not always shown when we right the simplified reaction. For example, we might write a chemical reaction like this:
A + 2B => Z
What this implies is that 3 (1 A and 2 B) molecules "collide" with each other at the exact same instant, reacting to form Z. A collision such as this (even with many many particles) is so unlikely to occur that for practical purposes it basically never happens. In reality there is an intermediate state, i.e. the reaction takes place in more than one stage, perhaps like this:
A + B => Y
Y + B => Z
or
A + 2B => Y + B => Z
^intermediate state
See, here we don't have the problem of more than 2 molecules colliding at a time: A collides with B, producing Y, then Y collides with another B, producing Z.
Often the intermediate state is at a higher energy than the initial state (i.e. you must introduce energy into the system*). Catalysts provide alternative intermediate states (C = catalyst):
A + C => X
X + B => W
W + B => Z + C (Note: in this process our catalyst is completely recycled**)
or
A + 2B + C => X + 2B => W + B => Z + C
^----------------^intermediate states
Although we have added an extra step to our overall reaction, it (presumably) takes far less energy to reach these states than the original state in the first reaction.
*This is true for all non-spontaneous reactions, whether they are exothermic or endothermic. This is why simply putting methane and oxygen together is not necessarily enough to produce combustion; you must introduce a source of energy, like a spark.
**This is not always the case, but an example showing this is much more complicated (actually any real-world example is very complicated, which is why I didn't bother).
Catalysts are not necessarily used up in a process though. They may be completely recycled as part of the process, or they may have to be "scrubbed' periodically as they saturate.
However, TFA doesn't make it clear which is the case.
Arizona does not do DST. The Navajo reservation, inside Arizona, does DST. The Hopi reservation, inside the Navajo reservation, does not do DST.
There is a 100 mile stretch in Arizona which, depending on when you traverse it, may require 7 clock changes.
LibreOffice is actually what I use, because I don't have to use it very often (10 times per year). For that, I don't want to pay for MS Office and I have moved away from piracy as I've gotten older. I probably still have a cracked Office 2007 on a DVD around here somewhere...
Honestly, it's fine as long as you don't have to use it that often, e.g. when someone insists on sending you .doc/.docx files. But I imagine the city of Munich has to use it quite a bit more than I do. If Office-related stuff is a regular part of your job, invest in MS. Frankly, it's one of the few things they do better than everyone else.
I don't see what relevance Notepad.exe has to this conversation.
No more compelling reason than that. What a piece of garbage.
No, C: if the WiFi circuit isn't powered, there is no MAC address sent, period. If you need to confirm that WiFi is truly off, just compare the power consumption of the phone on vs. off.
Good luck with that. The WiFi is such a piddling amount of the draw that it may not even show up in the breakdown at all.
unlimited
adjective
not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent.
"the range of possible adaptations was unlimited"
synonyms: inexhaustible, limitless, illimitable, boundless, immeasurable, incalculable, untold, infinite, endless,
bottomless, never-ending
Exactly. We are already applying a less-than-literal definition of the word "unlimited" to this particular situation. Discussing to what degree the word is less-than-literal is to engage in a pissing contest.
You can reduce the failure rate by eliminating the toast and buttering the cat directly!