The ECMWF model is fairly beefy. It's almost American in how many extra layers and grid details it has (bigger is better!). It runs on good hardware and has good data assimilation. It still screws up with regularity, but it's not as bad as the American models. It's not clear that the methodology is significantly different, though. The model uses the same kind framework as the American and other global models. That is, it's not built spectacularly differently, or in a way that signifies that a different underlying philosophy was used.
Uhh, the site linked is not in any way an AGW denialist site, and the article actually refutes a standard claim from the deniers that there was some global cooling craze in the 70s.
I've never read any linguistics book that says anything other than what I wrote above. They all explicitly mention that High German is called such because it came from the higher terrain of Germany.
There's no relevant to what you've said about there being different varieties of low German. That was never in dispute and is not, in fact, in dispute. I even mentioned it in my post.
Don't let the current distribution of dialects fool you. Historically, places like Muenster would have been solidly low German. Once East Central German became the prestige dialect, it spread and supplanted the other dialects, even in the north. The same thing happened in France, where historically, what we now call French was in fact a minority language from the areas around Paris.
High and low refer to terrain and not prestige. Low German languages were spoken in the lowlands along the North Sea coast, and high German languages were spoken much further inland. High German is traditionally further split into central and upper dialect groups, with the upper groups being in Bavaria, Austria and Switzerland, and central being in between those places and the lowlands. It should be noted that low German languages include Dutch and also English, which derives from an amalgam of Saxon and some other low German dialects (dialects at the time, though everything is now separate languages). English and Dutch are certain prestige languages, but still low Germanic.
I was using "dialect" here to refer to different varieties of continental west Germanic (that is, everything except Danish, which is north Germanic). I should have used the word "language" as that was my intent. Sorry for the confusion.
That's only if you intentionally pronounce each syllable fully (with knowledge of the spelling -- which you have because you are literate). In normal speech, all vowels except for the stressed one (the one before the 'f') are reduced to schwas. The words could be written "puh-SIFF-uhk" and "spuh-SIFF-uhk". Note that there is sometimes variety in the nature of the schwas, but there is very slim evidence that they are different within, say, a word. If there are differences, they are between dialects. If you put your speech into a program like Praat, you would not likely see evidence of the schwas being pronounced differently.
English accents are fairly minimally different from one another. English in the US has had a short history. In India, these languages are mutually unintelligible and some of them aren't even from the same language families as the other (Tamil, for example, is completely unrelated to Hindi -- it's like Spanish and Basque).
Even if that's true (which some other commenters have said is not), it's still exactly the same as the English example given by the parent (orzetto). You said "those things are symbolically different and used in different contexts" -- are windows and mirrors not used in different contexts? And if you found a language that distinguished regularly different types of windows, would you then count English as deficient for generally just using one word in that same context?
To me, "specific" and "pacific" sound very similar. The vowels and all the consonants except for the initial 's' in "specific" are the same.
It sounds like they are running their words together because you aren't familiar with the accent/dialect/language. People say that about any speech they can't readily understand. I've heard Americans complain about Spanish (and even German) in the exact same way.
Dropping the "s" off "specific" does not mean the accent is an entirely different language. Do the people in Germany who say "is'" instead of "ist" speak a different language just because of that? No.
It's true that there are many vowel changes, but it's not usually more different than, say, the Northern Cities Vowel Shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_cities_vowel_shift), but I'd imagine you're more likely to have heard people speak with that accent than with the backwoods southern one, due to greater media presence of speakers of the former.
Regarding old northerners in Germany, they *do* truly speak a different language: low German, which is more closely related to English and Dutch than standard High German. The big difference between low and high German dialects is the presence or lack of the second High German consonant shift. Low German dialects (using Dutch as an example) will have "ik", "maken", "appel", "hopen", "tidj", etc., while High German has "ich", "machen", "apfel", "hoffen", "zeit", etc. Here's the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_German_consonant_shift. As you might imagine, this is a much bigger difference than accents in the US. As a native of the US, I've never been completely unable to understand someone's accent, though I can, of course, have some initial difficulty.
It is actually a dialect, called AAVE (African American Vernacular English). It's still fairly similar to standard American, but it has some additional verb forms and new or different vocabulary. See the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAVE
But even the thickest of southern accents are still English, with pretty the same grammar and vocabulary, and even a lot of pronunciation in common ("well" and "whale" are close, but not the same, however, "well" and "wohl" [the German equivalent] are quite differently pronounced and also have somewhat divergent meanings). What people often fail to understand about Chinese dialects is that they are actually separate languages, and usually only called dialects because of the apparent cultural and political unity of China. As the saying goes: "a language is a dialect with an army and a navy".
This and the all-powerful teachers' union myth need to die, but doubtless will become even more prevalent as time wears on as part of the right's war on collaborative, socially-beneficial, republican institutions, in favor of greed-based, competitive and antagonistic institutions.
You are free to leave the country if you don't want to be stolen from. Some of us want to pool resources and invest in society, and accept that any functioning society means compromise, rather than absolute freedom (which is neither absolute, nor freedom) for its own worthless sake.
That's true of any measurement, be it student performance, work performance, athletic performance. The people who just care about winning will focus on learning just enough to pass the test. Those who actually care will pass the test and be well-educated, well-rounded people. People in both groups will at least have learned *something* along the way, which is better than just giving up altogether.
Reductionists might say that intelligence is an illusion, but they'd say that everything else outside of quantum fields and pure math is an illusion too. If you step away from the absurd world of the reductionist, you will find that atheists aren't saying that it's all an illusion. It's quite obviously not. Things are going on in the brain, quite a lot of them. The atheist would say that instead of copping out with some sort of soul-based black box, that the answer lies in the emergent behavior of a complex web of interacting neurons and other cells.
I was only picking that one part of your post, since I'm linguistically minded. I don't disagree with any of what you say and it's saddened me that Google has squandered so many great opportunities.
I think the phrase "make a good idea great" means to implement it effectively and come up with closely related good ideas so that the net result of the original good idea is beyond what a baseline, minimal implementation would effect.
That English is a Germanic language is irrelevant here. The semantic development of the word to mean "poison" is something specific to German, as English retains the original meaning of the word.
I did not know you could do that and it never came up in any of the reading I did on script execution policy. Clearly, I didn't read close enough;). That looks like it probably solves the problem.
In my post above, you'll note that I did say that signing is not a bad idea and necessary in certain contexts, so I think we agree there.
Fair points. I've also heard that competing products aren't much better. But that only means that MS has a chance to make something really good and blow away the competition. In that area, they failed.
Yep. And if you want OO or real programming, just use Perl or Python.
And for God's sake, the whole signing scripts business with Powershell is a tragedy. I can understand the value of being a little bit more tight with scripts that can do harmful things, but it should only matter for scripts that need to run as admin or do system management tasks. I shouldn't need to cryptographically sign a script to extract tags from music files, for example. The process to do the signing is itself unnecessarily complex.
Slashdot Mirror
The ECMWF model is fairly beefy. It's almost American in how many extra layers and grid details it has (bigger is better!). It runs on good hardware and has good data assimilation. It still screws up with regularity, but it's not as bad as the American models. It's not clear that the methodology is significantly different, though. The model uses the same kind framework as the American and other global models. That is, it's not built spectacularly differently, or in a way that signifies that a different underlying philosophy was used.
Uhh, the site linked is not in any way an AGW denialist site, and the article actually refutes a standard claim from the deniers that there was some global cooling craze in the 70s.
I've never read any linguistics book that says anything other than what I wrote above. They all explicitly mention that High German is called such because it came from the higher terrain of Germany.
There's no relevant to what you've said about there being different varieties of low German. That was never in dispute and is not, in fact, in dispute. I even mentioned it in my post.
Don't let the current distribution of dialects fool you. Historically, places like Muenster would have been solidly low German. Once East Central German became the prestige dialect, it spread and supplanted the other dialects, even in the north. The same thing happened in France, where historically, what we now call French was in fact a minority language from the areas around Paris.
High and low refer to terrain and not prestige. Low German languages were spoken in the lowlands along the North Sea coast, and high German languages were spoken much further inland. High German is traditionally further split into central and upper dialect groups, with the upper groups being in Bavaria, Austria and Switzerland, and central being in between those places and the lowlands. It should be noted that low German languages include Dutch and also English, which derives from an amalgam of Saxon and some other low German dialects (dialects at the time, though everything is now separate languages). English and Dutch are certain prestige languages, but still low Germanic.
Platt Deutsch == Low German. I've never seen any indication that these are anything other than synonyms. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_German
I was using "dialect" here to refer to different varieties of continental west Germanic (that is, everything except Danish, which is north Germanic). I should have used the word "language" as that was my intent. Sorry for the confusion.
That's only if you intentionally pronounce each syllable fully (with knowledge of the spelling -- which you have because you are literate). In normal speech, all vowels except for the stressed one (the one before the 'f') are reduced to schwas. The words could be written "puh-SIFF-uhk" and "spuh-SIFF-uhk". Note that there is sometimes variety in the nature of the schwas, but there is very slim evidence that they are different within, say, a word. If there are differences, they are between dialects. If you put your speech into a program like Praat, you would not likely see evidence of the schwas being pronounced differently.
English accents are fairly minimally different from one another. English in the US has had a short history. In India, these languages are mutually unintelligible and some of them aren't even from the same language families as the other (Tamil, for example, is completely unrelated to Hindi -- it's like Spanish and Basque).
Even if that's true (which some other commenters have said is not), it's still exactly the same as the English example given by the parent (orzetto). You said "those things are symbolically different and used in different contexts" -- are windows and mirrors not used in different contexts? And if you found a language that distinguished regularly different types of windows, would you then count English as deficient for generally just using one word in that same context?
How would that apply to 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. generations of Asians?
You read that whole article and *that* is the only thing you came with? I think that speaks more about you than the wikipedia or AAVE.
To me, "specific" and "pacific" sound very similar. The vowels and all the consonants except for the initial 's' in "specific" are the same.
It sounds like they are running their words together because you aren't familiar with the accent/dialect/language. People say that about any speech they can't readily understand. I've heard Americans complain about Spanish (and even German) in the exact same way.
Dropping the "s" off "specific" does not mean the accent is an entirely different language. Do the people in Germany who say "is'" instead of "ist" speak a different language just because of that? No.
It's true that there are many vowel changes, but it's not usually more different than, say, the Northern Cities Vowel Shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_cities_vowel_shift), but I'd imagine you're more likely to have heard people speak with that accent than with the backwoods southern one, due to greater media presence of speakers of the former.
Regarding old northerners in Germany, they *do* truly speak a different language: low German, which is more closely related to English and Dutch than standard High German. The big difference between low and high German dialects is the presence or lack of the second High German consonant shift. Low German dialects (using Dutch as an example) will have "ik", "maken", "appel", "hopen", "tidj", etc., while High German has "ich", "machen", "apfel", "hoffen", "zeit", etc. Here's the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_German_consonant_shift. As you might imagine, this is a much bigger difference than accents in the US. As a native of the US, I've never been completely unable to understand someone's accent, though I can, of course, have some initial difficulty.
It is actually a dialect, called AAVE (African American Vernacular English). It's still fairly similar to standard American, but it has some additional verb forms and new or different vocabulary. See the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAVE
But even the thickest of southern accents are still English, with pretty the same grammar and vocabulary, and even a lot of pronunciation in common ("well" and "whale" are close, but not the same, however, "well" and "wohl" [the German equivalent] are quite differently pronounced and also have somewhat divergent meanings). What people often fail to understand about Chinese dialects is that they are actually separate languages, and usually only called dialects because of the apparent cultural and political unity of China. As the saying goes: "a language is a dialect with an army and a navy".
It seems that you've never seen a headline before.
This and the all-powerful teachers' union myth need to die, but doubtless will become even more prevalent as time wears on as part of the right's war on collaborative, socially-beneficial, republican institutions, in favor of greed-based, competitive and antagonistic institutions.
You are free to leave the country if you don't want to be stolen from. Some of us want to pool resources and invest in society, and accept that any functioning society means compromise, rather than absolute freedom (which is neither absolute, nor freedom) for its own worthless sake.
That's true of any measurement, be it student performance, work performance, athletic performance. The people who just care about winning will focus on learning just enough to pass the test. Those who actually care will pass the test and be well-educated, well-rounded people. People in both groups will at least have learned *something* along the way, which is better than just giving up altogether.
Reductionists might say that intelligence is an illusion, but they'd say that everything else outside of quantum fields and pure math is an illusion too. If you step away from the absurd world of the reductionist, you will find that atheists aren't saying that it's all an illusion. It's quite obviously not. Things are going on in the brain, quite a lot of them. The atheist would say that instead of copping out with some sort of soul-based black box, that the answer lies in the emergent behavior of a complex web of interacting neurons and other cells.
I was only picking that one part of your post, since I'm linguistically minded. I don't disagree with any of what you say and it's saddened me that Google has squandered so many great opportunities.
I think the phrase "make a good idea great" means to implement it effectively and come up with closely related good ideas so that the net result of the original good idea is beyond what a baseline, minimal implementation would effect.
That English is a Germanic language is irrelevant here. The semantic development of the word to mean "poison" is something specific to German, as English retains the original meaning of the word.
I did not know you could do that and it never came up in any of the reading I did on script execution policy. Clearly, I didn't read close enough ;). That looks like it probably solves the problem.
In my post above, you'll note that I did say that signing is not a bad idea and necessary in certain contexts, so I think we agree there.
Fair points. I've also heard that competing products aren't much better. But that only means that MS has a chance to make something really good and blow away the competition. In that area, they failed.
Yep. And if you want OO or real programming, just use Perl or Python.
And for God's sake, the whole signing scripts business with Powershell is a tragedy. I can understand the value of being a little bit more tight with scripts that can do harmful things, but it should only matter for scripts that need to run as admin or do system management tasks. I shouldn't need to cryptographically sign a script to extract tags from music files, for example. The process to do the signing is itself unnecessarily complex.