This is only because of the spelling, however--all instances where "wo" occurred in words other than the object marker have been assimilated to "o." Most Japanese people wouldn't even know which instances of "o" used to be "wo."
It's more like saying Americans can't pronounce "Ljuba." Furthermore, "w" in isolation is just "u." Can you pronounce "wtii?" No cheating--you can't throw any vowel sound in after the "w." Obviously the Japanese can pronounce "we," but you can pronounce "gh" as a velar fricative--you just never do, and it would feel awkward to do so (assuming you don't speak a language with that sound).
Look I didnt read thge article, but I read the post about it here on Slashdot. I lived with 5 guys from Thailand and they couldnt pronounce 'Will'. But they could pronouce the W, just not the ll'. In fact, it came out sounding like 'Wiww'. Even more W's!. Japanese people cant pronounce W's or E's? Its essentially 'Wee', right? Can they pronounce Wakizashi? So I dont get that.
In case you weren't aware, Thailand is not a part of Japan. Neither of them are U.S. states either, in case you were wondering. What the hell does your anecdote have to do with anything? I mean, I knew some Germans who couldn't pronounce "sláinte!" This sure gives me some insight into French!
Japanese is a mora-based language. In modern Japanese, "wa" is a valid mora, but "wi," "wu," "we," and "wo" are not.
For that matter, can you pronounce "w" in isolation? Hint: you can't because it's a glide.
"Wi" is not a phoneme in modern Japanese. The reason the hiragana for it is no longer used is that "wi" became "i" in all positions in Japanese. Although "ui" can be phonetically realized as a diphthong, phonemically it is still two morae.
Put in a different perspective, voiceless "l" occurs phonetically in English, but English-speakers would probably find the name "Hlii" a bit awkward.
Because obviously a commercial venture would never be less than forthcoming about opportunities to make money at the expense of consumers. At the very least, this will provide an opportunity to track media viewing habits overtly.
At least such subpoenas are theoretically legitimate. It's kind of sad that while normally one would be concerned over whether or not this level of secret activity is justified, these days this seems pretty same since at least they're actually going through a legal process at all.
You mean the one who had record approval ratings when he was impeached for lying about fellatio? Yeah, I can easily see how one would equate covering up Iran-Contra and Watergate with a blowjob. I mean, the national security implications are pretty indistinguishable.
I would rather not have the executive above the law, but if they are, you're damn right I'd rather it be de jure than de facto. When the government's intentions are naked, fewer people will tolerate it.
Please don't treat this stuff as if it were all one dimensional and simple. This is a complex issue, and a knee jerk reaction just proved how incapable people are of thinking through the issues.
Exactly. I mean, the British financed the French and Indian War, and were just trying to recover their losses with the Stamp Act. What kind of uncivilized people would demand no taxation with representation as a knee-jerk reaction?
Oh right--Americans. Yes, we are supposed to have a knee-jerk reaction whenever our freedoms are trampled, if not a trigger-finger reaction. Terrorism is a much smaller threat than our own government. If the government can't collect domestic intelligence while respecting the law, then frankly I'd rather have them foil fewer terrorist plots than erode civil liberties.
However, an objective point of view on the facts themselves is so hard to achieve, that NPOV often consists of objective presentations of subjective viewpoints. It is technically objective, but saying "an objective viewpoint" instead of "NPOV" usually has more authoritative connotations.
I have a true issue with the concept of a "neutral" point of view. No POV is neutral. The belief that such a POV exists is born of the idea that all issues have 2 sides to them, black and white, right and wrong, and that a neutral POV can exist somewhere in the middle. This simply isn't the case.
This is not Wikipedia's definition of NPOV. What you are talking about is more similar to "balance." The idea behind NPOV is to state obvious facts where the facts are known, and to present opinions as opinions. This has nothing to do with "2 sides," and trying to be definitively centrist is in fact against the NPOV policy.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of NPOV. Even many Wikipedians admit that it is an ideal to strive for, not something that can be accomplished entirely. But your strawman is entirely irrelevant to this debate.
I must voice my agreement with the esteemed parent-poster and voice my support of his most valid and sincere observations. I have found that many so-called "psychiatrists" and their associates in this day and age practice a dangerous pseudo-science which attributes actions to a malaise of the brain, as though the mind were held at the whim of its physical environs. Nay, good sirs, God in His infinite wisdom hath given man Free Will, and places Free Will and Reason in the seat of the human mind. To attribute human action to the basest of physical exigencies is Godless, dishonest, and immoral. Indeed, as it is our exercise of Free Will which is the basis of our morality, so-called "Mental Illness" is properly categorized as a moral shortcoming. That we should allow a place for such morally deficient people in our society, and even beyond this, to accommodate them and give credence to their duplicitous claims that their faults are not born of their own corruption is truly lunacy on a level exhibited by the very people whom so-called "Progressives" wish to enable in their vices.
Surely many will contend, "But sir, what of the fairer sex, so oft guided not by reason but by emotional folly?" Remember though, that God created Man in His image, and woman as a derivative. Being an imperfect replica of Man, the vagaries of Hysteria may indeed strike women against their diminished Will, but remember too that this affliction is readily ameliorated by a Hysterectomy. Bear in mind too, that harsh is this may seem, barrenness is no punishment, but a natural decision to curb the propagation of maladies of the mind.
In conclusion, fuck you CrazyJeremy. Xenu will prevail, and the thetans will rape your mind mercilessly until you have perished from your mortal form.
Sir, I have analyzed your post, and every word contained therein was previously published in the work "Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary," yet I see no mention in your post that you have obtained permission to reproduce Webster's works in whole or part.
Iraq borders not only countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria, but also Kuwait, Jordan, and even Turkey. Hussein was oppressive, and this allowed him to enforce secularism against the will of the people. Since the brutality of his dictatorship is irrelevant to the justification of Bush's stated casus belli, there's no need to equivocate it.
Did you miss the part where I wasn't talking about Hussein putting down insurrections or waging wars of aggression, but instead the murder and ethnic cleansing of Iraqi citizens? What next, you're going to argue that "extreme force" was necessary when Andrew Jackson used it?
You mean all those countries like Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Morocco where the people hate the U.S. and dislike the government for being too friendly to the U.S.? Or perhaps a place like Iran where the government hates the U.S. but the people do not? Castro and Hussein had a pretty important thing in common: both of their countries were hit by sanctions from the U.S. (though in Iraq's case it really was almost all Hussein's fault).
Personally, I'd say it has more to do with Europe and America's total disregard for national sovereignty in the Middle East.
Slashdot Mirror
This is only because of the spelling, however--all instances where "wo" occurred in words other than the object marker have been assimilated to "o." Most Japanese people wouldn't even know which instances of "o" used to be "wo."
It's more like saying Americans can't pronounce "Ljuba." Furthermore, "w" in isolation is just "u." Can you pronounce "wtii?" No cheating--you can't throw any vowel sound in after the "w." Obviously the Japanese can pronounce "we," but you can pronounce "gh" as a velar fricative--you just never do, and it would feel awkward to do so (assuming you don't speak a language with that sound).
They'd still say "uii" since "ui" is how they pronounce "wi" in foreign words.
In case you weren't aware, Thailand is not a part of Japan. Neither of them are U.S. states either, in case you were wondering. What the hell does your anecdote have to do with anything? I mean, I knew some Germans who couldn't pronounce "sláinte!" This sure gives me some insight into French!
Japanese is a mora-based language. In modern Japanese, "wa" is a valid mora, but "wi," "wu," "we," and "wo" are not.
For that matter, can you pronounce "w" in isolation? Hint: you can't because it's a glide.
re vo ru sho n
Put in a different perspective, voiceless "l" occurs phonetically in English, but English-speakers would probably find the name "Hlii" a bit awkward.
Next time, try to frame your argument in the form of statements which support your point rather than refute it.
So grocery stores wouldn't sell expired food if they knew they could get away with it?
Because obviously a commercial venture would never be less than forthcoming about opportunities to make money at the expense of consumers. At the very least, this will provide an opportunity to track media viewing habits overtly.
At least such subpoenas are theoretically legitimate. It's kind of sad that while normally one would be concerned over whether or not this level of secret activity is justified, these days this seems pretty same since at least they're actually going through a legal process at all.
You mean the one who had record approval ratings when he was impeached for lying about fellatio? Yeah, I can easily see how one would equate covering up Iran-Contra and Watergate with a blowjob. I mean, the national security implications are pretty indistinguishable.
I would rather not have the executive above the law, but if they are, you're damn right I'd rather it be de jure than de facto. When the government's intentions are naked, fewer people will tolerate it.
Exactly. I mean, the British financed the French and Indian War, and were just trying to recover their losses with the Stamp Act. What kind of uncivilized people would demand no taxation with representation as a knee-jerk reaction?
Oh right--Americans. Yes, we are supposed to have a knee-jerk reaction whenever our freedoms are trampled, if not a trigger-finger reaction. Terrorism is a much smaller threat than our own government. If the government can't collect domestic intelligence while respecting the law, then frankly I'd rather have them foil fewer terrorist plots than erode civil liberties.
Am I the only one who thinks that this really means that it is going to be the next Kazaa?
However, an objective point of view on the facts themselves is so hard to achieve, that NPOV often consists of objective presentations of subjective viewpoints. It is technically objective, but saying "an objective viewpoint" instead of "NPOV" usually has more authoritative connotations.
This is not Wikipedia's definition of NPOV. What you are talking about is more similar to "balance." The idea behind NPOV is to state obvious facts where the facts are known, and to present opinions as opinions. This has nothing to do with "2 sides," and trying to be definitively centrist is in fact against the NPOV policy.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of NPOV. Even many Wikipedians admit that it is an ideal to strive for, not something that can be accomplished entirely. But your strawman is entirely irrelevant to this debate.
Fortunately, fewer than in Australia.
The record is pretty bad. In fact, if Apple continues to fail at this rate, pretty soon they'll bring down the whole economy with them.
1. Maintain a tenuous balance on the edge of total collapse for decades 2. ??? 3. Profit
Only in this case, instead of nobody being sure who knows what step 2 is, we all know that Jobs knows, but he won't tell anybody.
Surely many will contend, "But sir, what of the fairer sex, so oft guided not by reason but by emotional folly?" Remember though, that God created Man in His image, and woman as a derivative. Being an imperfect replica of Man, the vagaries of Hysteria may indeed strike women against their diminished Will, but remember too that this affliction is readily ameliorated by a Hysterectomy. Bear in mind too, that harsh is this may seem, barrenness is no punishment, but a natural decision to curb the propagation of maladies of the mind.
In conclusion, fuck you CrazyJeremy. Xenu will prevail, and the thetans will rape your mind mercilessly until you have perished from your mortal form.
Sir, I have analyzed your post, and every word contained therein was previously published in the work "Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary," yet I see no mention in your post that you have obtained permission to reproduce Webster's works in whole or part.
Iraq borders not only countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria, but also Kuwait, Jordan, and even Turkey. Hussein was oppressive, and this allowed him to enforce secularism against the will of the people. Since the brutality of his dictatorship is irrelevant to the justification of Bush's stated casus belli, there's no need to equivocate it.
Did you miss the part where I wasn't talking about Hussein putting down insurrections or waging wars of aggression, but instead the murder and ethnic cleansing of Iraqi citizens? What next, you're going to argue that "extreme force" was necessary when Andrew Jackson used it?
The U.S. government being evil doesn't make Saddam Hussein any less evil.
Personally, I'd say it has more to do with Europe and America's total disregard for national sovereignty in the Middle East.