I believe you're looking for ACRN. I don't listen to the radio down here (we only get ACRN and a couple stations from West Virgina last I checked), but I'd like to know where you found an NPR station, I miss my local university's!
Apple will continue to benefit from the fact it has sold so many iPods--devices that work only with Apple's service. Last quarter Apple sold 800,000 of the portable music players
This should really say that iTMS only works with iPods, and not the other way around. As it stands, the statement is blatantly incorrect.
Although I've never heared a Japanese person attempt to say 'Engrish', I suspect they would have just as much trouble saying it as 'English'. There are half a dozen problems with the word from the point of view of a native Japanese speaker, the least of which being the r/l.
Engrish - the obvious
Engrish - concurrent consonants are practically nonexistent in Japanese ('n' is a pseudo-exception, it is somewhat special in being its own syllable, but it's not the same 'n' that we know)
Engrish - The "short" 'i' also doesn't exist in Japanese, their vowels being limited to (forgive me for not being more technical) ah, ee, oo, eh, and oh
Engrish - The Japanese language is syllabic, and for reasons similar to the above, you can't end on anything but a vowel ('n' being the exception)
An English->Japanese->English transliteration (you don't really lose much coming from Japanese to English, not if you know how Japanese is pronounced, anyway) would probably look something like this: ingurishu or maybe ingurishi
I shall return the favor.:)
You're right about that 4, but as '3383' is my favorite sequence of numbers in my little bit of pi, I feel compelled to correct you back.:D
Interesting that we both omitted a singe digit, but were otherwise correct. (I verified the rest of the sequence with google, so I think no more corrections should be necessary.)
Funny, I have no trouble memorizing PINs, IDs, SSNs, license plates, phone numbers (despite the fact that I hate phones) etc.
Only a few of these are actually random (most people change their PIN to a number they'll remember, and even in the case that they don't, that's only a few numbers). Phone numbers are most decidedly not random--they are hierarchical in nature (country code, area code, exchange, and, surprise, only 4 numbers are left to simply memorize)--we have mandatory 10-digit-dialing in my area (you have to dial the area code on all phone numbers including local ones) and it's no more trouble remembering numbers than with 7-digit dialing, or 5-digit dialing used for on-campus numbers at my university.
Also, I did RTFA, and my point is unrelated to how they memorize these sequences (for the most part). Most things we must memorize are pre-structured, unlike the random strings of numbers/whatever these people are memorizing. My point is simply that it is, for the most part, entirely unnecessary for us to have to assign patterns to random series to memorize them, because almost/everything/ worth memorizing already has a structure and a pattern that we're familiar with.
do you actually need to memorize random strings of numbers or letters or positions of cards in a deck or whatnot? Short of trying to memorize 150 digits of 'pi' in middle school for a contest (which was won by someone with "photographic" memory who didn't even look at the numbers until the night before) I can't recall a single time that truly random memorization has been neccessary or useful.
Instead, our brains are much better suited to recognizing patterns, which is why we can, as actors in play, for example, memorize hundreds of lines. Of course, I myself usually forget all the lines in a script/song/whatever within a couple weeks after the last performance, but the point is that seldom do we need to memorize anything that is not structured and patterned.
So, how 'smart' does this really make you? Sure, it's impressive, and I respect the people who can do it... but they don't make me feel stupid. It's like people who can juggle--hey, it's cool and all, I wish I could do it too... but if I can't, no biggie!
3.1415926535897932384626338327... that's all i can ever remember, and I probably messed up somewhere.
I've seen quite a few posts on this topic, so I thought something might need cleared up:
Linguistics != Language
All of these 'prior art'-esque posts about how their school or some other school has some course in sindarin or quenya or klingon or this or that fail to notice that teaching about the linguistics of a language has little to do with teaching the actual language.
Linguistics is basically about the structure of language. You can learn everything there is about the linguistics of a language without being taught how to speak it (in the sense that reading an RFC doesn't generally relate much to actually using whatever protocol or what-have-you that it's written on from a user-standpoint).
I'm sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine--
People seem to lord "gojira" over the heads of others as if it were more correct than "Godzilla"... guess what? Both "Godzilla" and "Gojira" are written/exactly/ the same in Japanese--depending on which standard of romanization is used, both are equally correct. There are 3 characters in the name, 'go' 'ji' and 'ra'... but 'ji' can also written 'zi' and 'dzi', and 'ra' can also be written 'la'. Therefore "Godzilla" is just as valid a romanization of the original as 'Gojira' is, no more, no less.
IIRC it was even in the new Godzilla movie: a female scientist told a sailor or something that was trying to find out what happened to a guy who was attacked by Godzilla (okay, I haven't seen the movie in a couple years, forgive me if my details are wrong) that it was Gojira, not Godzilla (and not in the nicest way, I believe...)
"We are not accessing anybody's 'property,' and we are certainly not violating anybody's personal rights. We are doing exactly the same thing that every other infringer is doing."
I'm sorry, but did this person just say that my data isn't my property, and that rifling through it isn't a violation of my rights? Or did he maybe imply that if it's on the internet, it's open to the public? Gee, so I've found this MP3 on an open network (say, the world wide web, or a p2p network). Obviously, since it's just lying there, I should be able to access it (which, due to an 'accident of technology' happens to involve copying the data to my own computer) without violating anyone's rights. Don't you think?
"Many copy-protection technologies include on a CD a second copy of the album in compressed form ready for transfer to an owner's computer, but not capable of being distributed on programs such as Kazaa. These technologies are still, in many respects, in their infancy, and they will become more and more flexible over the next few years."
So, this guy's saying that we should let everything stand for a few years, and then all of a sudden companies are going to make things _less_ restrictive? No offense, but I'm not holding my breath. I wouldn't trust the major labels to do that for a second, much less years. If we let it go until then, the DMCA/UCITA-type laws will be firmly entrenched and fair use will have disappeared entirely in digital media. Anyone else want to wait for that to happen?
Interestingly enough, the Japanese exchange students at my university write better cursive than anyone I know! They seemed surprised that I couldn't write a lick of it. We tried our hands at writing `The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog' and the Japanese student was _much_ faster than I was! I beat her at printing, though. Take that!:P
I am totally unashamed to say that I can't write cursive in the slightest. I can, however, type around 100wpm (if transcribing, slower if I have to think about what I'm writing, of course), and print legibly if not nearly so quickly.
As for the connected vs. unconnected letters argument, I rarely stop to pick up my pencil while printing; most of my letters are connected anyway. As a college student (admittedly, in CS) I've never found my writing(printing) speed to be a problem, slow as it is.
Even my signature isn't official cursive, but rather my own script: the first letters of my first and last name are my own uniquely printed characters, and the rest are a sort of psuedo-cursive that is not unlike my printing.
I, too, had to write that paragraph for the SAT and SAT II tests. It took me at least 10 minutes, and I had to raise my hand twice to ask how to write some of the letters. It certainly didn't reflect on my english skills, with a 740 verbal on the SAT I.
In short, I haven't suffered any from my inability to speedily write cursive except for an artificial situation on a standardized test; I have notebooks full of notes to prove that I can 'write' legibly and easily without it.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe you're looking for ACRN. I don't listen to the radio down here (we only get ACRN and a couple stations from West Virgina last I checked), but I'd like to know where you found an NPR station, I miss my local university's!
Apple will continue to benefit from the fact it has sold so many iPods--devices that work only with Apple's service. Last quarter Apple sold 800,000 of the portable music players
This should really say that iTMS only works with iPods, and not the other way around. As it stands, the statement is blatantly incorrect.
Although I've never heared a Japanese person attempt to say 'Engrish', I suspect they would have just as much trouble saying it as 'English'. There are half a dozen problems with the word from the point of view of a native Japanese speaker, the least of which being the r/l.
Engrish - the obvious
Engrish - concurrent consonants are practically nonexistent in Japanese ('n' is a pseudo-exception, it is somewhat special in being its own syllable, but it's not the same 'n' that we know)
Engrish - The "short" 'i' also doesn't exist in Japanese, their vowels being limited to (forgive me for not being more technical) ah, ee, oo, eh, and oh
Engrish - The Japanese language is syllabic, and for reasons similar to the above, you can't end on anything but a vowel ('n' being the exception)
An English->Japanese->English transliteration (you don't really lose much coming from Japanese to English, not if you know how Japanese is pronounced, anyway) would probably look something like this:
ingurishu
or maybe
ingurishi
Hey, my cousin was backup vocals and bass in some of that "campy 70s music", you insensitive clod!
Actually it was a hit song in 1968, "Nobody But Me", by the Human Beinz. w00t!
I shall return the favor. :) :D
1 058209
You're right about that 4, but as '3383' is my favorite sequence of numbers in my little bit of pi, I feel compelled to correct you back.
3.14159265358979323846264338379502884197169399375
Interesting that we both omitted a singe digit, but were otherwise correct. (I verified the rest of the sequence with google, so I think no more corrections should be necessary.)
Funny, I have no trouble memorizing PINs, IDs, SSNs, license plates, phone numbers (despite the fact that I hate phones) etc. Only a few of these are actually random (most people change their PIN to a number they'll remember, and even in the case that they don't, that's only a few numbers). Phone numbers are most decidedly not random--they are hierarchical in nature (country code, area code, exchange, and, surprise, only 4 numbers are left to simply memorize)--we have mandatory 10-digit-dialing in my area (you have to dial the area code on all phone numbers including local ones) and it's no more trouble remembering numbers than with 7-digit dialing, or 5-digit dialing used for on-campus numbers at my university. Also, I did RTFA, and my point is unrelated to how they memorize these sequences (for the most part). Most things we must memorize are pre-structured, unlike the random strings of numbers/whatever these people are memorizing. My point is simply that it is, for the most part, entirely unnecessary for us to have to assign patterns to random series to memorize them, because almost /everything/ worth memorizing already has a structure and a pattern that we're familiar with.
do you actually need to memorize random strings of numbers or letters or positions of cards in a deck or whatnot? Short of trying to memorize 150 digits of 'pi' in middle school for a contest (which was won by someone with "photographic" memory who didn't even look at the numbers until the night before) I can't recall a single time that truly random memorization has been neccessary or useful.
Instead, our brains are much better suited to recognizing patterns, which is why we can, as actors in play, for example, memorize hundreds of lines. Of course, I myself usually forget all the lines in a script/song/whatever within a couple weeks after the last performance, but the point is that seldom do we need to memorize anything that is not structured and patterned.
So, how 'smart' does this really make you? Sure, it's impressive, and I respect the people who can do it... but they don't make me feel stupid. It's like people who can juggle--hey, it's cool and all, I wish I could do it too... but if I can't, no biggie!
3.1415926535897932384626338327... that's all i can ever remember, and I probably messed up somewhere.
I've seen quite a few posts on this topic, so I thought something might need cleared up:
Linguistics != Language
All of these 'prior art'-esque posts about how their school or some other school has some course in sindarin or quenya or klingon or this or that fail to notice that teaching about the linguistics of a language has little to do with teaching the actual language.
Linguistics is basically about the structure of language. You can learn everything there is about the linguistics of a language without being taught how to speak it (in the sense that reading an RFC doesn't generally relate much to actually using whatever protocol or what-have-you that it's written on from a user-standpoint).
I'm sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine-- People seem to lord "gojira" over the heads of others as if it were more correct than "Godzilla"... guess what? Both "Godzilla" and "Gojira" are written /exactly/ the same in Japanese--depending on which standard of romanization is used, both are equally correct. There are 3 characters in the name, 'go' 'ji' and 'ra'... but 'ji' can also written 'zi' and 'dzi', and 'ra' can also be written 'la'. Therefore "Godzilla" is just as valid a romanization of the original as 'Gojira' is, no more, no less.
IIRC it was even in the new Godzilla movie: a female scientist told a sailor or something that was trying to find out what happened to a guy who was attacked by Godzilla (okay, I haven't seen the movie in a couple years, forgive me if my details are wrong) that it was Gojira, not Godzilla (and not in the nicest way, I believe...)
I'm sorry, but did this person just say that my data isn't my property, and that rifling through it isn't a violation of my rights? Or did he maybe imply that if it's on the internet, it's open to the public? Gee, so I've found this MP3 on an open network (say, the world wide web, or a p2p network). Obviously, since it's just lying there, I should be able to access it (which, due to an 'accident of technology' happens to involve copying the data to my own computer) without violating anyone's rights. Don't you think?
So, this guy's saying that we should let everything stand for a few years, and then all of a sudden companies are going to make things _less_ restrictive? No offense, but I'm not holding my breath. I wouldn't trust the major labels to do that for a second, much less years. If we let it go until then, the DMCA/UCITA-type laws will be firmly entrenched and fair use will have disappeared entirely in digital media. Anyone else want to wait for that to happen?
Interestingly enough, the Japanese exchange students at my university write better cursive than anyone I know! They seemed surprised that I couldn't write a lick of it. We tried our hands at writing `The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog' and the Japanese student was _much_ faster than I was! I beat her at printing, though. Take that! :P
As for the connected vs. unconnected letters argument, I rarely stop to pick up my pencil while printing; most of my letters are connected anyway. As a college student (admittedly, in CS) I've never found my writing(printing) speed to be a problem, slow as it is.
Even my signature isn't official cursive, but rather my own script: the first letters of my first and last name are my own uniquely printed characters, and the rest are a sort of psuedo-cursive that is not unlike my printing.
I, too, had to write that paragraph for the SAT and SAT II tests. It took me at least 10 minutes, and I had to raise my hand twice to ask how to write some of the letters. It certainly didn't reflect on my english skills, with a 740 verbal on the SAT I.
In short, I haven't suffered any from my inability to speedily write cursive except for an artificial situation on a standardized test; I have notebooks full of notes to prove that I can 'write' legibly and easily without it.