By "significant" I mean noun vs verb significant, not type 1 ajective vs type 2 adjective. Like a Chocktaw would find an adjective significant. (although I am having great difficulty grasping this "no adjectives, no quantifiers" concept. Surely they have ways of expressing that something is hotter or colder, more or less, faster or slower)
he question is: when languages differ, does that reflect a difference in the minds of the people, or does it just show how incomplete our understanding of language and mind is?
I think it is more that the language doesn't capture everything that the mind is capable of. In other words, language A maps part of the mind, and language B maps another part. Just because my language doesn't have 20 different words for snow, doesn't mean I don't recognize that there are different kinds of snow. But what if my language is missing a part of speech?
Just because I have a brilliant idea doesn't mean somebody else hasn't thought of it first: having a drive through window on a doughnut/coffee shop, having a button on your TV that causes the remote to beep, placing a universal remote control inside a phaser housing and selling them at Star Trek conventions, wireless modems for laptops. Why I'm a font of already-thought-up ideas.
Do other languages have parts of speech that do not have English equivalents? (I'm guessing yes, but not significant ones). Do you have any good links I could look at?
My personal theory is that the way language is constructed is analogous to the way the brain works. We break the world into objects, and these objects have attributes. Thus we have nouns and adjectives. Similarly, we see actions and these actions can have different characteristics: verbs and adverbs. When you are modelling language, you are modelling the mind.
No, the idea behind Mutually Assured Destruction is that no matter what country A does to country B, the B-ians can launch a destructive second strike attack against country A. The idea is that country A would not launch a first strike because they would not survive the retaliation.
No, the parent is right. They are altering the spin of the protons in hydrogen atoms. Although if the magnetic field is strong enough to affect the properties of a proton, it is probably more than strong enough to affect electrons as well.
No, companies that deliberately prevent others from competing, or lock end users into oem equipment and upgrades, or that buy or twist laws to enforce thier control are evil.
NMR is poorly named, though, because it has nothing to do with altering the nucleus of the atoms. There are no changes to the proton or neutron counts, no particles emitted or absorbed. In short, it is not "nuclear" in the common usage of the word. MRI is vastly more descriptive of the process.
The ESA cannot get you off-planet. They don't have any rockets suitable for people. That's why ESA astonauts get rides with the Americans and Russians.
Unfortunately (and unsurprisingly), RSS doesn't honor your "homepage" preferences. Maybe when the slashcode developers get some time away from their day jobs they can add in that feature!
CompTIA...one of the largets computer technology industry groups.
A-HA! You've made my point. The certification is recognized because the industry chooses to recognize it. So, we the open source community merely need to put together a certification and push it. What do we need? An RFC? An ISO?
It doesn't matter who backs the test. What does matter is that the test is recognized by the industy. As an example, people know that MCSE is from Microsoft, CCNA is from Cisco, but who governs A+? Who knows? Who cares? The industry has somehow perceives these tests as valuable. If we develop a test (say, PVTAT: Peer Verified Technical Aptitude Test) that the industry perceives as valuable, then it will not matter that there is no central authority. The industry itself is the authority.
I don't know what they're teaching now, but I've never heard about 1 not being prime until this thread. I concluded that this must have been a recent development in the field of mathematics. Of course, like all the 'recent developments' I've become aware of, it is old news to most people, especially those in the field. However, I was definitely taught that 1 was prime.
The number 1 is a special case which is considered neither prime nor composite (Wells 1986, p. 31). Although the number 1 used to be considered a prime (Goldbach 1742; Lehmer 1909; Lehmer 1914; Hardy and Wright 1979, p. 11; Gardner 1984, pp. 86-87; Sloane and Plouffe 1995, p. 33; Hardy 1999, p. 46), it requires special treatment in so many definitions and applications involving primes greater than or equal to 2 that it is usually placed into a class of its own.
So, 1 was prime in 1984, and not prime in 1986. Obviously when they changed the definition of prime in 1985, they neglected to notify me.
Slashdot Mirror
People verb words all the time.
By "significant" I mean noun vs verb significant, not type 1 ajective vs type 2 adjective. Like a Chocktaw would find an adjective significant. (although I am having great difficulty grasping this "no adjectives, no quantifiers" concept. Surely they have ways of expressing that something is hotter or colder, more or less, faster or slower)
he question is: when languages differ, does that reflect a difference in the minds of the people, or does it just show how incomplete our understanding of language and mind is?
I think it is more that the language doesn't capture everything that the mind is capable of. In other words, language A maps part of the mind, and language B maps another part. Just because my language doesn't have 20 different words for snow, doesn't mean I don't recognize that there are different kinds of snow. But what if my language is missing a part of speech?
Just because I have a brilliant idea doesn't mean somebody else hasn't thought of it first: having a drive through window on a doughnut/coffee shop, having a button on your TV that causes the remote to beep, placing a universal remote control inside a phaser housing and selling them at Star Trek conventions, wireless modems for laptops. Why I'm a font of already-thought-up ideas.
eleventy billion dollars....
Only if you build it on the Brandywine.
Do other languages have parts of speech that do not have English equivalents? (I'm guessing yes, but not significant ones). Do you have any good links I could look at?
My personal theory is that the way language is constructed is analogous to the way the brain works. We break the world into objects, and these objects have attributes. Thus we have nouns and adjectives. Similarly, we see actions and these actions can have different characteristics: verbs and adverbs. When you are modelling language, you are modelling the mind.
I remember seeing film where a propeller driven biplane was launched and retrieved from the bottom of an airship.
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?
No, the idea behind Mutually Assured Destruction is that no matter what country A does to country B, the B-ians can launch a destructive second strike attack against country A. The idea is that country A would not launch a first strike because they would not survive the retaliation.
The only unhackable computer is a vapourware one.
Your links got raped. Try these:
o d=11 o d=4227
IE6: http://secunia.com/graph/?type=adv&period=2005&pr
Firefox 1.x http://secunia.com/graph/?type=adv&period=2005&pr
No, the parent is right. They are altering the spin of the protons in hydrogen atoms. Although if the magnetic field is strong enough to affect the properties of a proton, it is probably more than strong enough to affect electrons as well.
No, companies that deliberately prevent others from competing, or lock end users into oem equipment and upgrades, or that buy or twist laws to enforce thier control are evil.
NMR is poorly named, though, because it has nothing to do with altering the nucleus of the atoms. There are no changes to the proton or neutron counts, no particles emitted or absorbed. In short, it is not "nuclear" in the common usage of the word. MRI is vastly more descriptive of the process.
The ESA cannot get you off-planet. They don't have any rockets suitable for people. That's why ESA astonauts get rides with the Americans and Russians.
I don't see circuit diagrams. I don't see source code. I don't see blueprints. That site has almost nothing I want to know about Spirit.
Unfortunately (and unsurprisingly), RSS doesn't honor your "homepage" preferences. Maybe when the slashcode developers get some time away from their day jobs they can add in that feature!
The code can be found here. Go scratch your itch.
It's all in the book To Serve Man
Well, it is sex of mammoth proportions, after all.
Problem is that dupes and typos are so common here, that the algorithm would consider them part of the language.
Wouldn't it be easier just to point to an online dictionary?
CompTIA...one of the largets computer technology industry groups.
A-HA! You've made my point. The certification is recognized because the industry chooses to recognize it. So, we the open source community merely need to put together a certification and push it. What do we need? An RFC? An ISO?
It doesn't matter who backs the test. What does matter is that the test is recognized by the industy. As an example, people know that MCSE is from Microsoft, CCNA is from Cisco, but who governs A+? Who knows? Who cares? The industry has somehow perceives these tests as valuable. If we develop a test (say, PVTAT: Peer Verified Technical Aptitude Test) that the industry perceives as valuable, then it will not matter that there is no central authority. The industry itself is the authority.
I don't know what they're teaching now, but I've never heard about 1 not being prime until this thread. I concluded that this must have been a recent development in the field of mathematics. Of course, like all the 'recent developments' I've become aware of, it is old news to most people, especially those in the field. However, I was definitely taught that 1 was prime.
All those devices require that you go into the big blue room. Why not just use ssh or vnc or something?
The number 1 is a special case which is considered neither prime nor composite (Wells 1986, p. 31). Although the number 1 used to be considered a prime (Goldbach 1742; Lehmer 1909; Lehmer 1914; Hardy and Wright 1979, p. 11; Gardner 1984, pp. 86-87; Sloane and Plouffe 1995, p. 33; Hardy 1999, p. 46), it requires special treatment in so many definitions and applications involving primes greater than or equal to 2 that it is usually placed into a class of its own.
So, 1 was prime in 1984, and not prime in 1986. Obviously when they changed the definition of prime in 1985, they neglected to notify me.
What is the next logical number in the sequence 1, 3, 5, 7, ...?
11 is the next odd prime in the sequence listed.