Heh, you should be offended at the comic writing more than anything else. The fact that Wonder Woman, arguably the most high-profile and iconic female superhero, is constantly written to be stupid and irrational in her actions, is astounding. Writers simply don't know what to do with female characters most of the time and often portray them in silly ways.
Yes, I agree... we need more female writers in the comic book writer's group... Otherwise you end up with essentially Slashdot writing the character of a woman.
I heard that it was actually just easier for them to pay off credit card fraud in general, than to prevent it.
Which is why they usually don't do anything to prevent it.
Remember the guy who tore up his credit card entry form like they said to, then taped it back together, put in an old address, and a different phone number, and still got a credit card in his name?
Yeah, the companies know how to prevent all this stuff, just it would cost more money than they lose by just eating the costs.
but she soons gets over her feminine mood swing and comes back
OMG, I can't believe you just said that... I mean, I know you guys think that there are no women on the internet, but we really do exist, and this is just like... WAY more offensive than anything else I could think of right now...
How is informing the world that person X is an undercover operative for your government (and that their "employer" is a CIA front, also outing each and every operative utilizing that front) not close to a textbook definition of "giving Aid to the Enemy"?
Well, no one has really taken the hint that maybe they should turn to the constitution, as Treason for the United States is defined there. And it says that no one shall be convicted of treason unless given evidence by two witnesses confessing to the same act.
So, basically, you first have to get two people to admit that they committed treason before you can even stand a chance of convicting anyone of treason.
As such, no one really gets charged with treason unless they were really bad. Spies and the like against the US typically are attacked with espionage laws rather than treason, as it's hard enough to find enough evidence that the person is a spy, let alone find two other spies that are willing to say that they all committed treason.
Oh, let me produce another example of where a prosecutor gives evidence to the person that they're trying which gets the person off.
A woman has two kids, is pregnant and is on wellfare, after a genetic test reveals that the children aren't hers, they arrest here for fraud, and place the children in protective custody. The mother is absolutely baffled because she recalls quite well the labor that she went through for both.
Eventually looking through things the prosecutor came across "Chimerism" where a person and their non-identical twin end up becoming one person. With this evidence, immediately after the birth of her third child, they genetically test it, and it comes out again as not her child, despite knowing without a doubt that it was her child.
The lady is then released, her children are returned, and an apology is offered.
Exculpatory evidence is the evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial, which clears or tends to clear the defendant of guilt. In many countries such as the United States, if the police or prosecutor has found such evidence, he/she must disclose it to the defendant. The prosecution's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence can result in the dismissal of a case. The opposite is inculpatory evidence, which tends to prove a person's guilt.
In the US, if the prosecutor, or police have such evidence that you're innocent, they are required to release such information to the defendent.
Don't you think the first thing they would want to do is prove that he had opportunity? Examining his whereabouts during the day of the murder should have been a priority of the investigation, and considering that he was in the jail of the DA that convicted him, don't you think that information should have been available to the DA?
Are you aware that there are people who even get new SSNs and change names, marry new women, and have even joined different military services while having deserted from another force?
Not to mention how many illegals live in the US, and she only gives up her ability to practice medicine legally... And then only if she doesn't manage to fake documentation to do so like in "Catch Me If You Can"... do you think HE was practicing medicine with a license?
I can understand how the context of the other posts may present such a coloring of the interpretation of my dialog.
Rather, my attempt was to draw the line of "Language" such that it excludes primative proto-languages used by animals.
Yes, there are some amazing communication systems in the animal kingdom, but all of that pales in complexity to what humans have. (Note, have... not created...)
you can't help but shed a few tears for these kids, who are going to grow up with no mother
PRESUMABLY... as stated above, that she took off for Russia, and is now living her life in contact with her kids could still possibly be consistent with the objective facts as presented...
I recall in the Penn and Teller episode concerning the Death Penalty, they had one particular person there who had been on death row, and then later released when it was confirmed that the two witnesses to the murder that pinned it on him, were actually the murderers themselves.
Of course you can break everything into circumstantial evidence, until you realize that he had been in jail during the murder. OOPS! The Prosecutor neglected to actually look that up, I suppose.
I don't know if Reiser did it or not, but one should be super careful about this sort of thing... The investigators all too often get a suspect in mind, and then the evidence that they find points towards the suspect that they're trying to pin it on.
Of course, it's entirely suspicious that he had a "missing" car, that he later returned to...
90% of slashdot-user don't do this either, what was your point again?
You mistake formal grammar for complex grammar. I'll give you a good example, "In Soviet Russia, language learns animals!" While I'm certain everyone has groaned at that comment, it shows a use of grammatical skill that no animal has yet to duplicate. Your confusion upon "complex grammar" is clouded by how naturally grammar occurs in human beings. That slashdot-users are capable of identifying "All your base are belong to us" as an ungrammatical sentence is evidence alone of a complex grammar, again, beyond what animals have demonstrated.
The most complex grammar I've heard of so far is the prarie dogs mentioned by another poster. They use nouns and adjectives... that's great, but they don't use verbs...
Yes, and a three-year-old has a language that is significantly different from adults.
Without outstanding circumstances that three year old will develop language that is distinctly adult. Also, that three year old is likely already using grammatical structures beyond the ability of Koko.
If this experiment is forbidden, who has done it? Nobody? So it is only a theory then, isn't it?
The experiment is "forbidden" because it's an ethical breach to actually do it. Linguistics is confronted with this notion for a long time... we are not allowed or permitted due to ethical reasons of producing controls, or abnormalities of language.
Well, why is it that feral children haven't spontainiously developed their own language? If you would now like to point out that Nell did this: she already had been taught the beginning of a language by others and developed it from there on her own. But there are NO indications that you experiment would yield that result.
Feral children are raised singularly. I'll give you an example of the closest thing to the forbidden experiment that we have. In Nicaragua, deaf children were shunned, and isolated, then when a new government came into power, the children were generally relocated, and collected into deaf schools. The teachers knowing no sign, and/or only having a desire to teach audist skills attempted to teach the children to read and write Spanish, to lipread Spanish, and to generate vocal sounds approximating Spanish.
This was over all a failure with few kids picking up anything, but the teachers noticed that the children seemed to be miming to each other. They called in sign language experts, and these experts realized that these children in less than a generation, had spontaneously created a pidgin, and then creolized it into a new sign language, that was not influenced (or only partly influenced) by external sign languages.
Spontaneous Language Generation. Look it up: Idioma de Señas de Nicaragua (ISN)
Obviously not THAT unique and different. What about N'kisi? Or Alex? Both are talking parrots that clearly demonstrate that they are capable of reasoning.
From your link regarding Alex:
However, according to Dr. Pepperberg herself, Alex is not using human language, but is rather using "complex two-way communication." This means that Alex is able to translate a concept as he understands it into a form comprehensible to humans by using his knowledge of English.
You will have difficulty convincing me that he is using "language" when his actual trainer denies that he is using language. Of anyone, she would have the ability to recognize this.
I also did not claim that animals are able to reason... I have watched my cats work through simple reasoning processes, in particular my cat Millie enjoyed playing with water, trying to figure out what it was, how she could "catch it" etc. No other factor but the ability to reason explains what she was doing.
I never said that animals could not individually reaso
Koko does not use a complex, and consistent syntax.
I will not argue that she does not have a form of protolanguage, and is adept at communicating information to her handlers, however, this is still significantly different from humans.
As a forbidden experiment, let's place about, say 25, children with no language experience together. The result? They will invent a language spontaneously without being directly taught.
you, as many others, suffer from delusions of grandeur regarding human capabilities...
Most certainly you must be confused... I do not feel that language makes us superior to animals, but it does make us unique and different from animals.
And as far as "delusions of grandeur" regarding human capabilities, I suppose I'm imagining culture, civilization, technology, and the Internet? I must be pretty darn deluded to not realize that language has given us a significant advantage in allowing us to retain vast amounts of knowledge as a group, rather than simply as an individual.
We are able to pass on knowledge and invention easily through our use of language, which has lead to all sorts of progress... we are very little different from what we were 6,000 years ago (to carefully pick a time period that even creationists would agree with) genetically, and physically.
Our height increase is known to be a result of better diet, and our improved lifespan is chiefly due to effective waste management. And you probably thought your life was longer because of all the drugs, and modern medicine? Nope, it's #1 from getting rid of standing sesspools that people would use for water.
The truth is, is that human advancement over the last 6,000 years has been driven by linguistic capacity, and as our population rises exponentially (or nearly so) so to does the amount of knowledge retainable amoung our species. Writing then allowed us to retain even more, and the internet at last has raised the bar even further, allowing each individual access to immense amounts of information, without having to self-retain that knowledge.
Note, this still does not make us "better" than animals... it makes us simply different, and unique. Your evaluation of "better" or "superior" may differ from mine.
While I agree with what you say here, I will note that I never offered that language made us better than animals, but that it simply makes us different.
I believe the question was, "What's the difference?" That was answered...
Simply put...god doesn't exist. He's an imaginative figure branded into people's minds to try and keep them in line. For those of you who are ignorant enough to believe in him, he only exists in your mind, I apologize for the awakening.
I'll throw this out here, and all the linguists will nod, and all the non-linguists are going to try and debate me about this.
We have a method that relies upon complex syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in order to generate reasonably effective communication between our species. In one word: Language.
Now, to deal with the issues that people will likely raise:
"What about parrots, they can talk", Parrots are indeed capable of a surprising amount of phonology, that allows them to mimic human speech patterns. It has also been shown that they are able to associate words and phrases with ideas, concepts and behaviors. However, they only satisfy "semantics" in the above, and a relatively small subset of semantics.
"What about those apes that I heard learned to use sign language!" Well, first off, I'm happy to see that you recogize that sign language is actually language, and not just some form of gestural gumbo. However, the sign language learned by these Apes is equivalent to that gestural gumbo. They have associated one sign to an idea, and then they throw those signs out until someone actually does what they're hoping to get. "YOU ME TICKLE TICKLE ME ME TICKLE YOU ME TICKLE ME YOU" is a pretty good example of their communicative skill.
"I heard Dolphins can talk!" Dolphins do have a complex communication system that allows them to transmit fairly detailed notions back and forth to each other. However, they still lack the "complex syntax" given above.
"What about white mice, huh?" ok, you got me there.
I did some work inbound call sales work (that means I didn't call people, they called us) and signed them up for PeoplePC... Wow... eventually, I quit, and when I was asked why, I told my boss's boss that $8.50 an hour wasn't worth my time, when he asked why, I said I have a bachelor's degree. Then the idiot had the nerve to say "Well, I have a bachelor's degree, too!" It's like... uh, but you don't earn $8.50 an hour now do you?
Now I work for a large software company and probably make 2 or 3 times his salary...:)
Slashdot Mirror
I must say, I played that "Where's an Egg?" And yeah... that's just... wow... so bad it's funny...
No, it's controversial like the TV definition. Namely, "we just want you to talk about it."
Seriously, ever ad for an episodes of Bones or House MD that I saw on TV were: "Tonight on a controversial all-new Bones..."
Bad LLama!
Sex Tips for Geeks by ESR.
I know it's by ESR, and some people might put that off, but trust me, it really excited me to think about a guy actually doing what he recommends.
It really is good advice for you guys out there...
Yes, I agree... we need more female writers in the comic book writer's group... Otherwise you end up with essentially Slashdot writing the character of a woman.
I can see it now...
1. Talk to woman
2. ???
3. PANTIES!!!
*sigh*
I heard that it was actually just easier for them to pay off credit card fraud in general, than to prevent it.
Which is why they usually don't do anything to prevent it.
Remember the guy who tore up his credit card entry form like they said to, then taped it back together, put in an old address, and a different phone number, and still got a credit card in his name?
Yeah, the companies know how to prevent all this stuff, just it would cost more money than they lose by just eating the costs.
Crap, change my luggage combination!
OMG, I can't believe you just said that... I mean, I know you guys think that there are no women on the internet, but we really do exist, and this is just like... WAY more offensive than anything else I could think of right now...
Well, no one has really taken the hint that maybe they should turn to the constitution, as Treason for the United States is defined there. And it says that no one shall be convicted of treason unless given evidence by two witnesses confessing to the same act.
So, basically, you first have to get two people to admit that they committed treason before you can even stand a chance of convicting anyone of treason.
As such, no one really gets charged with treason unless they were really bad. Spies and the like against the US typically are attacked with espionage laws rather than treason, as it's hard enough to find enough evidence that the person is a spy, let alone find two other spies that are willing to say that they all committed treason.
Oh, let me produce another example of where a prosecutor gives evidence to the person that they're trying which gets the person off.
A woman has two kids, is pregnant and is on wellfare, after a genetic test reveals that the children aren't hers, they arrest here for fraud, and place the children in protective custody. The mother is absolutely baffled because she recalls quite well the labor that she went through for both.
Eventually looking through things the prosecutor came across "Chimerism" where a person and their non-identical twin end up becoming one person. With this evidence, immediately after the birth of her third child, they genetically test it, and it comes out again as not her child, despite knowing without a doubt that it was her child.
The lady is then released, her children are returned, and an apology is offered.
Exculpatory Evidence
In the US, if the prosecutor, or police have such evidence that you're innocent, they are required to release such information to the defendent.
Don't you think the first thing they would want to do is prove that he had opportunity? Examining his whereabouts during the day of the murder should have been a priority of the investigation, and considering that he was in the jail of the DA that convicted him, don't you think that information should have been available to the DA?
Are you aware that there are people who even get new SSNs and change names, marry new women, and have even joined different military services while having deserted from another force?
Not to mention how many illegals live in the US, and she only gives up her ability to practice medicine legally... And then only if she doesn't manage to fake documentation to do so like in "Catch Me If You Can"... do you think HE was practicing medicine with a license?
I can understand how the context of the other posts may present such a coloring of the interpretation of my dialog.
Rather, my attempt was to draw the line of "Language" such that it excludes primative proto-languages used by animals.
Yes, there are some amazing communication systems in the animal kingdom, but all of that pales in complexity to what humans have. (Note, have... not created...)
I thought that PR was lying... isn't it?
PRESUMABLY... as stated above, that she took off for Russia, and is now living her life in contact with her kids could still possibly be consistent with the objective facts as presented...
I recall in the Penn and Teller episode concerning the Death Penalty, they had one particular person there who had been on death row, and then later released when it was confirmed that the two witnesses to the murder that pinned it on him, were actually the murderers themselves.
Of course you can break everything into circumstantial evidence, until you realize that he had been in jail during the murder. OOPS! The Prosecutor neglected to actually look that up, I suppose.
I don't know if Reiser did it or not, but one should be super careful about this sort of thing... The investigators all too often get a suspect in mind, and then the evidence that they find points towards the suspect that they're trying to pin it on.
Of course, it's entirely suspicious that he had a "missing" car, that he later returned to...
You mistake formal grammar for complex grammar. I'll give you a good example, "In Soviet Russia, language learns animals!" While I'm certain everyone has groaned at that comment, it shows a use of grammatical skill that no animal has yet to duplicate. Your confusion upon "complex grammar" is clouded by how naturally grammar occurs in human beings. That slashdot-users are capable of identifying "All your base are belong to us" as an ungrammatical sentence is evidence alone of a complex grammar, again, beyond what animals have demonstrated.
The most complex grammar I've heard of so far is the prarie dogs mentioned by another poster. They use nouns and adjectives... that's great, but they don't use verbs...
Without outstanding circumstances that three year old will develop language that is distinctly adult. Also, that three year old is likely already using grammatical structures beyond the ability of Koko.
The experiment is "forbidden" because it's an ethical breach to actually do it. Linguistics is confronted with this notion for a long time... we are not allowed or permitted due to ethical reasons of producing controls, or abnormalities of language.
Feral children are raised singularly. I'll give you an example of the closest thing to the forbidden experiment that we have. In Nicaragua, deaf children were shunned, and isolated, then when a new government came into power, the children were generally relocated, and collected into deaf schools. The teachers knowing no sign, and/or only having a desire to teach audist skills attempted to teach the children to read and write Spanish, to lipread Spanish, and to generate vocal sounds approximating Spanish.
This was over all a failure with few kids picking up anything, but the teachers noticed that the children seemed to be miming to each other. They called in sign language experts, and these experts realized that these children in less than a generation, had spontaneously created a pidgin, and then creolized it into a new sign language, that was not influenced (or only partly influenced) by external sign languages.
Spontaneous Language Generation. Look it up: Idioma de Señas de Nicaragua (ISN)
From your link regarding Alex:
You will have difficulty convincing me that he is using "language" when his actual trainer denies that he is using language. Of anyone, she would have the ability to recognize this.
I also did not claim that animals are able to reason... I have watched my cats work through simple reasoning processes, in particular my cat Millie enjoyed playing with water, trying to figure out what it was, how she could "catch it" etc. No other factor but the ability to reason explains what she was doing.
I never said that animals could not individually reaso
I repeat the assertion from my original argument.
Koko does not use a complex, and consistent syntax.
I will not argue that she does not have a form of protolanguage, and is adept at communicating information to her handlers, however, this is still significantly different from humans.
As a forbidden experiment, let's place about, say 25, children with no language experience together. The result? They will invent a language spontaneously without being directly taught.
you, as many others, suffer from delusions of grandeur regarding human capabilities...
Most certainly you must be confused... I do not feel that language makes us superior to animals, but it does make us unique and different from animals.
And as far as "delusions of grandeur" regarding human capabilities, I suppose I'm imagining culture, civilization, technology, and the Internet? I must be pretty darn deluded to not realize that language has given us a significant advantage in allowing us to retain vast amounts of knowledge as a group, rather than simply as an individual.
We are able to pass on knowledge and invention easily through our use of language, which has lead to all sorts of progress... we are very little different from what we were 6,000 years ago (to carefully pick a time period that even creationists would agree with) genetically, and physically.
Our height increase is known to be a result of better diet, and our improved lifespan is chiefly due to effective waste management. And you probably thought your life was longer because of all the drugs, and modern medicine? Nope, it's #1 from getting rid of standing sesspools that people would use for water.
The truth is, is that human advancement over the last 6,000 years has been driven by linguistic capacity, and as our population rises exponentially (or nearly so) so to does the amount of knowledge retainable amoung our species. Writing then allowed us to retain even more, and the internet at last has raised the bar even further, allowing each individual access to immense amounts of information, without having to self-retain that knowledge.
Note, this still does not make us "better" than animals... it makes us simply different, and unique. Your evaluation of "better" or "superior" may differ from mine.
While I agree with what you say here, I will note that I never offered that language made us better than animals, but that it simply makes us different.
I believe the question was, "What's the difference?" That was answered...
Ahh.... five more minutes, Mom?
I'll throw this out here, and all the linguists will nod, and all the non-linguists are going to try and debate me about this.
We have a method that relies upon complex syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in order to generate reasonably effective communication between our species. In one word: Language.
Now, to deal with the issues that people will likely raise:
"What about parrots, they can talk", Parrots are indeed capable of a surprising amount of phonology, that allows them to mimic human speech patterns. It has also been shown that they are able to associate words and phrases with ideas, concepts and behaviors. However, they only satisfy "semantics" in the above, and a relatively small subset of semantics.
"What about those apes that I heard learned to use sign language!" Well, first off, I'm happy to see that you recogize that sign language is actually language, and not just some form of gestural gumbo. However, the sign language learned by these Apes is equivalent to that gestural gumbo. They have associated one sign to an idea, and then they throw those signs out until someone actually does what they're hoping to get. "YOU ME TICKLE TICKLE ME ME TICKLE YOU ME TICKLE ME YOU" is a pretty good example of their communicative skill.
"I heard Dolphins can talk!" Dolphins do have a complex communication system that allows them to transmit fairly detailed notions back and forth to each other. However, they still lack the "complex syntax" given above.
"What about white mice, huh?" ok, you got me there.
No no no... your opinions still wouldn't matter then. Only their opinions of what your opinions would matter then. :)
I had a guy complain to me that our Tech Support was in India, but I knew for a fact that none of our tech support was in India.
However, we did have an indian worker in the US that was doing tech support.
I don't know if the guy actually believed me that he was absolutely in America...
I did some work inbound call sales work (that means I didn't call people, they called us) and signed them up for PeoplePC... Wow... eventually, I quit, and when I was asked why, I told my boss's boss that $8.50 an hour wasn't worth my time, when he asked why, I said I have a bachelor's degree. Then the idiot had the nerve to say "Well, I have a bachelor's degree, too!" It's like... uh, but you don't earn $8.50 an hour now do you?
:)
Now I work for a large software company and probably make 2 or 3 times his salary...
I was about to .... yeah... you contribute to Uncylopedia don't you?