Annoyingly it also dropped the you singular and you plural- no tu/vous distinction which makes it clear if you're talking to an individual or group.
The best alternative I know if (even as a Northerner) is y'all, the only Southernism I picked up while living there.
For large groups it's "all y'all"
In real life, it's always pretty obvious whether you're speaking to an individual or a group.
If there is a group of people in front of me and I want to insult them all, I just say "you lot are a bunch of snot-guzzelling gazebos", if it's just one "you, yes you Mr Twatwaffle, you are an utter shower of sick."
The same is true of many languages. Spanish and Russian have regular pronunciation. I've heard that French has finite pronunciation rules, though they are complex, but haven't learned it.
French is certainly regular, and the rules are no more complicated than Spanish. Same with Italian and German.
I think that probably most European languages other than English have regular pronunciation.
1. Genders. It seems archaic, right? But there are practical reasons. For example, consider the sentence:
"I used a backhoe to drag a box but it was ruined in the process"
Which is ruined, the backhoe or the box? In Icelandic it's obvious because a backhoe is feminine but a box is masculine.
Yes, but if you ruined another feminine noun, or used a masculine tool to ruin the box, you still wouldn't know. Any language has some ambiguities, most of which can be avoided if you really have to by re-phrasing.
"I used a backhoe to drag a box, but the latter was ruined in the process."
"I used a backhoe to drag a box, unfortunately ruining the backhoe in the process."
Like it or not, English is the standard international language.
Bullshit. Spanish has more native speakers than English. Mandarin has close to three times as many as English. Hindi and Arabic are each quite close behind English.
If you're going to reply with your first word as "bullshit" it would be wise to ensure you know what you are talking about.
It is pretty much the definition of a "standard international language" that you measure it by the number of people who use it who SPECIFICALLY ARE NOT native speakers.
Would it not make more sense to just exchange a guilty plea for taking the death penalty off the table?
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that a terrorist would never admit that they are guilty of murder. In their eyes, they are soldiers fighting in a war, and so should be treated as prisoners of war.
This was the whole point of the IRA "dirty protest" during the Troubles: they thought that they should be treated as political prisoners rather than common criminals.
This is not an attempt to justify terrorism, I'm just pointing out why a genuine terrorist would never agree to a guilty plea for a crime.
It went to trial because It wanted to waste the peoples money and cause grief for as long as possible. It used the Constitutions to Its advantage. It sucks too there are some things i think people need to be executed for, this is number 1 on my short list. I think a very clear message should be given to would be terrorist, if caught and prosecuted, death WILL be you punishment.
Given that a lot of terrorists nowadays are either literally or effectively suicide bombers, I don't think that is a message they care much about.
The death penalty simply guarantees them martyr status in the eyes of their fellows.
Also you are ignoring the moral decisions that the computer would have to make, whether to swerve and hit a single person over going straight and hitting a family type dilemmas.
In the tiny number of cases where there is an element of choice, a computer wouldn't necessarily make any worse decision than a human driver.
Anyway, most of the time when pedestrians are killed, the driver is not in control for one reason or another, perhaps because of inattention, weather conditions or mechanical failure. There are few plausible scenarios where a driver has to choose to turn left over the old lady or right over the young mother and baby.
My average day is 18 to 20 hours usually 60 to 90 days straight. I'm fine with that because I suffer from extreme insomnia lasting days at a time. I haven't slept over 3 hours in the last 15 years. Drive, park and mess around online a hour or so, cat nap, and repeat.
Two questions: first, do you think a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets, and second, who's your preferred presidential candidate?
Blocking a driver-less vehicle onto the road in the middle of nowhere and helping yourself to free stuff is the equivalent of a misdemeanor in most places.
It's robbery, and if you're caught with any weapons, armed robbery can get you pretty much as long a sentence as murder.
.
This is going to make a big difference to uptime hours and I can see "drivers" being abused by unscrupulous employers.
Yes, here in the UK, I can picture the drivers basically working non stop Monday to Friday (at least) and being told to take their sleep in the cab as the rob-lorry drives through the night.
So, pretty much like now, but you wouldn't have to stop overnight at a service station to eat and pick up prostitutes.
Have a tanker (also automated) come in behind a truck, have a nozzle hooked up, and fuel it while driving.
Why bother? There's a big time difference between a plane having to land, refuel, then take off again, and a truck stopping for a few minutes to get topped up.
You still cannot teach stupidity. But you can successfully distract and slow-down those 10-15% of pupils that could actually have developed real understanding otherwise.
However crappy your education system, clever kids will still end up understanding more than less intelligent ones.
That's the problem we have when the administrators of this country have degrees that never required a calculus based stats course.
The problem of applying the wrong performance measures to jobs is a political or psychological rather than a mathematical one.
Having a PhD in Statistics won't help if it just lets you create a more complex formula to calculate your targets: people will still modify their behaviour to meet those targets.
This is all very basic stuff taught in business studies/financial management type courses. If you say to a salesman "your salary comes from x% of your sales, but we also want you to spend time studying the market, assessing your competitors and taking health and safety courses" they are going to skimp on everything except the sales.
If you listen to him, not just sound-bites chosen to make him look like total scum, but listen to the whole story, he felt that cheating was so prevalent in the sport that anyone who didn't cheat had no chance. His crime, compared to most of the other teams was to be the best cheater.
That's not to excuse him, but it is a really important context - when the system is rigged you have a choice of guaranteed failure, giving up your life's dream or cheating too. Those first two options are really, really bitter pills to swallow.
Faced with the two possibilities of (a) having to take drugs because everyone else in cycling was or (b) being more likely to win if you cheated, I know which I would believe in the absence of compelling evidence for (a).
Slashdot Mirror
Annoyingly it also dropped the you singular and you plural- no tu/vous distinction which makes it clear if you're talking to an individual or group.
The best alternative I know if (even as a Northerner) is y'all, the only Southernism I picked up while living there.
For large groups it's "all y'all"
In real life, it's always pretty obvious whether you're speaking to an individual or a group.
If there is a group of people in front of me and I want to insult them all, I just say "you lot are a bunch of snot-guzzelling gazebos", if it's just one "you, yes you Mr Twatwaffle, you are an utter shower of sick."
The same is true of many languages. Spanish and Russian have regular pronunciation. I've heard that French has finite pronunciation rules, though they are complex, but haven't learned it.
French is certainly regular, and the rules are no more complicated than Spanish. Same with Italian and German.
I think that probably most European languages other than English have regular pronunciation.
1. Genders. It seems archaic, right? But there are practical reasons. For example, consider the sentence:
"I used a backhoe to drag a box but it was ruined in the process"
Which is ruined, the backhoe or the box? In Icelandic it's obvious because a backhoe is feminine but a box is masculine.
Yes, but if you ruined another feminine noun, or used a masculine tool to ruin the box, you still wouldn't know. Any language has some ambiguities, most of which can be avoided if you really have to by re-phrasing.
"I used a backhoe to drag a box, but the latter was ruined in the process."
"I used a backhoe to drag a box, unfortunately ruining the backhoe in the process."
Or whatever.
On the other hand, some people struggle for years and never manage to learn a trilled "r"
I can't roll my r's you insensitive clod! Mind you, as someone from the south of England, this isn't uncommon.
The most widely known language in the world is "broken English"
Or, to give it its more formal title, US English.
Bullshit. Spanish has more native speakers than English. Mandarin has close to three times as many as English. Hindi and Arabic are each quite close behind English.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers
If you're going to reply with your first word as "bullshit" it would be wise to ensure you know what you are talking about.
It is pretty much the definition of a "standard international language" that you measure it by the number of people who use it who SPECIFICALLY ARE NOT native speakers.
In a lot of people's minds, there is a near equation of water and life, and the possibility of extra-terrestial life scares them.
Overdub this with "Achy, Breaky Heart," also on loop.
Wow, talk about cruel and unusual punishment.
What Osama orchestrated wasn't a crime, it was an act of war, different rules apply.
Terrorism on a large scale is still terrorism, and is treated as a crime. 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings are both crimes of mass murder.
Too bad no country or state has the option of the penalty of death by torture
Islamic State does...
Would it not make more sense to just exchange a guilty plea for taking the death penalty off the table?
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that a terrorist would never admit that they are guilty of murder. In their eyes, they are soldiers fighting in a war, and so should be treated as prisoners of war.
This was the whole point of the IRA "dirty protest" during the Troubles: they thought that they should be treated as political prisoners rather than common criminals.
This is not an attempt to justify terrorism, I'm just pointing out why a genuine terrorist would never agree to a guilty plea for a crime.
It went to trial because It wanted to waste the peoples money and cause grief for as long as possible. It used the Constitutions to Its advantage. It sucks too there are some things i think people need to be executed for, this is number 1 on my short list. I think a very clear message should be given to would be terrorist, if caught and prosecuted, death WILL be you punishment.
Given that a lot of terrorists nowadays are either literally or effectively suicide bombers, I don't think that is a message they care much about.
The death penalty simply guarantees them martyr status in the eyes of their fellows.
Also you are ignoring the moral decisions that the computer would have to make, whether to swerve and hit a single person over going straight and hitting a family type dilemmas.
In the tiny number of cases where there is an element of choice, a computer wouldn't necessarily make any worse decision than a human driver.
Anyway, most of the time when pedestrians are killed, the driver is not in control for one reason or another, perhaps because of inattention, weather conditions or mechanical failure. There are few plausible scenarios where a driver has to choose to turn left over the old lady or right over the young mother and baby.
I hope you're right, I would love to have an autonomous car ready within the next 20-30 years so it can ferry me about when I'm old and drunk.
My average day is 18 to 20 hours usually 60 to 90 days straight. I'm fine with that because I suffer from extreme insomnia lasting days at a time. I haven't slept over 3 hours in the last 15 years. Drive, park and mess around online a hour or so, cat nap, and repeat.
Two questions: first, do you think a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets, and second, who's your preferred presidential candidate?
Blocking a driver-less vehicle onto the road in the middle of nowhere and helping yourself to free stuff is the equivalent of a misdemeanor in most places.
It's robbery, and if you're caught with any weapons, armed robbery can get you pretty much as long a sentence as murder. .
You inadvertently a few punctuation marks to break up the solid wall of text.
This is going to make a big difference to uptime hours and I can see "drivers" being abused by unscrupulous employers.
Yes, here in the UK, I can picture the drivers basically working non stop Monday to Friday (at least) and being told to take their sleep in the cab as the rob-lorry drives through the night.
So, pretty much like now, but you wouldn't have to stop overnight at a service station to eat and pick up prostitutes.
Have a tanker (also automated) come in behind a truck, have a nozzle hooked up, and fuel it while driving.
Why bother? There's a big time difference between a plane having to land, refuel, then take off again, and a truck stopping for a few minutes to get topped up.
How would you fence stolen trees?
I imagine you'd convert them into anonymous panels.
I wonder what long distance truck drivers are thinking right about now.
Finally, I can leave this soul destroying job behind and fulfill my destiny on the ballroom dancing floor.
You still cannot teach stupidity. But you can successfully distract and slow-down those 10-15% of pupils that could actually have developed real understanding otherwise.
However crappy your education system, clever kids will still end up understanding more than less intelligent ones.
Probably just a troll. Possibly insane.
What an epitaph!
That's the problem we have when the administrators of this country have degrees that never required a calculus based stats course.
The problem of applying the wrong performance measures to jobs is a political or psychological rather than a mathematical one.
Having a PhD in Statistics won't help if it just lets you create a more complex formula to calculate your targets: people will still modify their behaviour to meet those targets.
This is all very basic stuff taught in business studies/financial management type courses. If you say to a salesman "your salary comes from x% of your sales, but we also want you to spend time studying the market, assessing your competitors and taking health and safety courses" they are going to skimp on everything except the sales.
Armstrong is another example of the same thing.
If you listen to him, not just sound-bites chosen to make him look like total scum, but listen to the whole story, he felt that cheating was so prevalent in the sport that anyone who didn't cheat had no chance. His crime, compared to most of the other teams was to be the best cheater.
That's not to excuse him, but it is a really important context - when the system is rigged you have a choice of guaranteed failure, giving up your life's dream or cheating too. Those first two options are really, really bitter pills to swallow.
Faced with the two possibilities of (a) having to take drugs because everyone else in cycling was or (b) being more likely to win if you cheated, I know which I would believe in the absence of compelling evidence for (a).