Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Same? (Score 1) 237

Links can be a bit weird in Chinese. FIrst example you're likely to come across is ma. Ma (third tone) means horse. Toneless ma is a particle that changes a sentence into a question. The character for the particle is the character for horse with a mouth (kou) next to it, showing that it's a part of speech, and that it sounds like the word for horse.

Several Chinese friends of mine assure me that there are links between meaning/sound and character for all of them, via these 'radicals', but it's a bit too Times-cryptic-crosswordy to be useful for Westerners.

Comment Re:Bullshit (except in London) (Score 1) 232

In London, TfL does the shafting with the ridiculous pricing scheme for Tube fares, clearly designed to spring tourists for money.

Anyone who's visiting London; if you are going to get more than two single tube journeys in zones 1-2, it's cheaper to buy a day travel card. In fact, it's only slightly more expensive to buy an Oyster and a day travel card, and you can get your deposit on the Oyster refunded when you leave.

Comment Re:You got the cause and effect reversed (Score 3, Insightful) 452

None of the above is still a valid choice in a democratic society. You just can't express it in the US or the UK other than by staying at home*.

His opinion is not irrelevant, except insofar as our crap-arse voting systems have made it irrelevant. Which is no excuse for you to get all high-and-mighty on him.

*In addition, to take the example of the UK, in the last major swing in parliament (1997), 180 seats changed hands out of 659. That means that, assuming people are evenly distributed in constituencies**, 72% of votes made no difference at all to the outcome of the election. So voting in the UK at least is largely a waste of time.

**A bad assumption, especially back in '97 before Scottish devolution.

Comment Re:Communications is a human right. (Score 1) 114

Indeed. The principle being that we don't have infinite resources, so you have to be able to justify their allocation. In capitalism, this is done on the free market. Socialism advocates political allocation.

It is up to the reader to do some research and decide which is generally more efficient.

Slashdot Top Deals

I go on working for the same reason a hen goes on laying eggs. -- H.L. Mencken

Working...