Or having read the wiki article it actually just happens to be a boring sounding game.
At my school my friends and I play a card game called Mao, where you have to learn the rules from observation. So many people, that have straight A's in all AP classes, totally suck at this game and never get past the first few rules. Usually they say the game sucks and they quit.
This game is proof that schools are not really teaching kids how to learn, and it is very sad.
it sounds like uno with the added frustration of being surrounded by high levels of smug as you attempt to figure out wtf is going on.Or having read the wiki article it actually just happens to be a boring sounding game.
I'm sure there are worse languages, and yes, definitely some which are more logical. And English doesn't do well with the Information Age.
Google for "bank." Ok, are you looking for a place to keep money, sloping terrain by a river, or an action a plane can perform? Geez, they even consist of two nouns and a verb.
"Calculus" - it's either a field of mathematics or a deposit on your teeth.
--------------
Ok. Two things. First off, the notion that one language is more logical or complex than another is simply false. All languages are equally complex or equally simple whatever that means. I challenge you to present a metric that would allow such a comparison. It doesnt exist and you wouldn't find any creditable linguist that would support such a statement. All languages serve the communicative needs of the community in which it is spoken. The notion of one language being more logical or superior than another is a throw back to 19th century when Europeans dominated the field of linguistics research and everything was contrasted, categorized and judged relative to Germanic and Romance languages. Any language that was discovered that didnt fit that paradigm was often classified as primitive or inferior. This misnomer remains in our discourse today. Unfortunately.
English has fewer shortcomings? What on earth does that mean?
It is the complexity and creativity of all human languages, both in terms of their underlying grammar and their use that makes it very very hard to render into computer code. The myriads of ways that human languages often chose to categorize items and events and situations can often seem illogical (and thus hard to replicate in the NLP interfaces.). As for moving towards a planet wide language some might argue that the spread of English has been filling that role as a global lingua franca. Certainly, in the beginning, in terms of the internet but who knows what the future will hold
Oh, and the complexity and difficulty to learn post again another often heard falsehood. All children learn, regardless of the language, and barring cognitive impairments etc, their first languages in a relatively predictable order and time frame. That is a generalization of course but in most cases the structure of language for us is in place by about age 6. By 6 we have the framework in place. All the rest is adding on and refining.
If you are talking about 2nd language acquisition so many variables can affect the process. That is a whole nether thread.
Secondly, speaking of use and interpretation. Al languages make use of polysemous extensions with lexical items. Bank (financial institution, river feature, cloud formation, planes action etc) is by far the norm and not the exception. Human languages often use context, position in a sentence, inflection, grammatical particles etc to help point to the meaning if you will. No language has a full 1 to 1 meaning to form correlation for all its words. It would be unwieldy and impossible to use. Often (not always) the older a word is in a language the more senses it tends to acquire. Sometimes old senses die out in favor of new ones and we have no idea of the original meaning. Lexicons in languages are constantly adding new words and tossing out disused forms. Take the old posting / rant on USE versus UTILIZE. Both are French in origin. Use came into English around 1300 and has 26 related senses. Utilize is also French but entered around 1700. It has 3. (all according to the OED). Both overlap in many areas but each still exists. My first thought was that the answer may be in register - utilize (polysyllabic) is perhaps more formal while use (mono and way older and therefore more frequent ) is favored in more regular discourse contexts. Whatever the point is polysemy is normal, essential and really shows the creative side of human language and categorization. And it is a nightmare to replicate with computer code. Just try Google translate sometime. Freakin awful.
Inflate to sidewall and peace out.
Phonetics for one. Way too many people can't pronounce foreign names because they don't read it as it's spelled.
Are you sure you want the Teachers' Union teaching about taxation?Taxation
How to learn.
/thread.
Seriously people aren't taught HOW to learn. They are taught thousands of interconnected facts and asked to regurgitate them on command. You have to learn on your own HOW to learn. When these kids reach university and come to the realization that they have to learn themselves some of them just say fuck it I can't do that.
I'm not just being cute. There are many techniques and underlying principals on HOW to learn things. Things like abstraction, pattern recognition, mnemonics, applying general rules to new sets of data not seen before. etc etc...
I know a sickeningly large number of people who cannot write a paragraph correctly. Some people can barely read - they struggle on common words if they're more than 5 letters long, and no one knows how to use a semicolon anymore.law and politics should be covered by social studies... at least they were back when I was in school.
teaching something like mechanics would require a huge $$ investment from an already broke government without much benefit in return.
I get through life pretty well without ever having taken calc or physics.
AFAIK, high schools generally require 3 years of math... you're suggesting 6?
personally, I've always felt like English programs should have significantly less emphasis on literature and focus on writing instead (and not just basics like grammar, but rhetoric, style, etc)
who balances a checkbook anymore?
heck, who USES a checkbook?
online banking?I pay my rent and electric bills by check. It costs more to them electronically.
Plus, the register in my checkbook allows me to keep track of all the money in my checking account.
Or having read the wiki article it actually just happens to be a boring sounding game.
online banking?
I write my monthly check as well, but I've never "kept" a checkbook. I just don't see the point with online banking. when it's time to pay bills, I bring up my bank account on one firefox tab, my visa bill on another, and my amex on the third.
checking account - rent - amex - visa - anticipated spending money I'll need for the next 2 weeks - amount of slush I like to keep in checking (500-750) = what I drop into savings
Venus is the size of earth, how can you possibly disagree that green house gasses are the reason why it is inhospitable. Jupiter is a gas giant with a lot of mass, if Jupiter was like mercury, all rock, I doubt it'd be very hot at all. I do not know the temperature of Jupiter on the surface (if there is one) and neither does anybody else, we can only speculate. But you're missing the point, these planets are hot because of green house gasses and the fact that you're disputing that CO2 and other gasses don't cause the atmosphere to retain heat is completely idiotic.
Sure, Venus has plenty of greenhouse gases, to the point where the atmosphere is around 90x as dense as the earth's and the majority is CO2. Guess what? It's also noticeably closer to the sun than the earth, to the point where it gets about 2x as much sun than the earth. The planet is ridiculously hot because of its incredibly thick atmosphere and closeness to the sun. Greenhouse gases may play a role but there is no possible way it would be anything that could be considered 'hospitable' even if the atmosphere was mostly oxygen and nitrogen like ours. It would still have ridiculously dense atmosphere and incredibly hot surface temperatures.
Venus's temperatures can be almost completely attributed to its atmosphere. It gets 1/4 the amount of energy from the sun that Mercury does, yet Venus has higher peak and average temperatures. If it weren't for the carbon dioxide, Venus would have temperatures about the same as Earth.
Venus's temperatures can be almost completely attributed to its atmosphere. It gets 1/4 the amount of energy from the sun that Mercury does, yet Venus has higher peak and average temperatures. If it weren't for the carbon dioxide, Venus would have temperatures about the same as Earth.
When doing infrared spectroscopy in a chem lab, the only things we ever care about are water and CO2 screwing up the readings. Nitrogen (80% of our atmosphere) does not absorb infrared light, and neither does oxygen (the other 20% of our atmosphere).Any atmosphere that thick regardless of composition would have a nasty greenhouse effect. The CO2 just makes it worse than it already would have been otherwise.
How about personal responsibility? Economics of plastic? How not to make the mistakes of their parents?What are some things that the education system has miserably failed us in?
The following are some things I think should be taught in schools (up and through High School) as mandatory:
- Civics
- Basic Law
- Basic Politics
- Basic Mechanics (Car, bike maintenance)
What else am I missing? Everyone should know the democratic process and how to do what AAA does without calling AAA (unless you need a tow).
When doing infrared spectroscopy in a chem lab, the only things we ever care about are water and CO2 screwing up the readings. Nitrogen (80% of our atmosphere) does not absorb infrared light, and neither does oxygen (the other 20% of our atmosphere).
This is part of the reason scientists care so much about CO2 and how it can potentially cause large global temperature changes. If N2 and O2 already absorbed all of the infrared light, adding CO2 to the atmosphere wouldn't do anything and nobody would care. Most of our infrared absorption comes from water, not nitrogen or oxygen. This is the main reason global warming effects are not seen in places where water is in the air, but huge temperature changes are seen in places that do not have any gaseous water such as deserts and the poles.
Here is a picture of predicted global warming trends over 100 years:
You'll notice the largest changes are expected in desert regions - north pole, south pole, Africa, and the Australian outback.
Venus would likely be colder than earth if it had a thick atmosphere made entire of nitrogen and oxygen with no CO2 or water.
water may be worse but it technically shouldn't be relevant if "nothing is melting" and therefore there is no such thing as global warming. I mean after all, if there is the same amount of water in the air as there has always been for the time we've been around, then I don't see why we should concern ourselves with that little fact.