page 3

6/2/2008 7:35:38 AM

Quote :

"is it really too hard for you to just write a reply instead of re-posting everything line by line? We're not in kindergarten here."

We are, however, on an internet message board. I don't know about you, but I did nothing like this in kindergarten.

Quote :

"And we definitely have limits."

Indeed. Americans complain about people who speak fluently but have thick accents.

Quote :

"Having said that -- the notion that a language barrier "harms" people is so absurd, it's borderline psychotic."

I'm not withdrawing the description. I value easy communicate between all people. The lack of a common language impedes this. It's that straightforward.

Quote :

"What's considered "harmful" in any reasonable discussion is relative to what's "normal.""

How so? Considering how much we differ on such basic points, I can see why we're arguing bitterly. I would describe countless things as both normal and harmful. Hierarchy, for example. National boundaries. Sickness. War. Traffic. I could continue.

Quote :

"Your idea of normalcy is apparently a utopian world where everyone communicates equally well with each other, and anything other than that is a "harm.""

That's the ideal I'm working toward, yes.

Quote :

"The simple reason is that the language barrier exists because people want it."

Again, it's not that simple. I don't know English because I chose to. I didn't decide, at some early age, to be unable to communicate with Mandarin speakers. No way. Instead, my environment determined the language I learned. Choice would be only part of the reason why languages persist. If you ignore this you can't possibly understand the issue.

Quote :

"If some culture wants to exclude others by virtue of speaking a different language, then that's their choice and your religious notion that everyone should cross-communicate equally doesn't factor into the equation."

You're dead-set on characterizing my position as religious, aren't you? Fine. Like any good zealot, I'll proselytize. I'll attempt to spread my ideas. My religious notion enters the debate because I force it in. Your anti-religious bigotry doesn't scare me.

Quote :

"Because that's _your_ viewpoint; it's not necessary in this world that everyone share your personal preferences."

Not yet, anyway. But the missionaries have been sent out. Conversion is underway.

Quote :

"The fact is, I am sure that as of today that many countries _can_ "buy" fluency."

Maybe, though it'd be a massive reeducation campaign. Has that ever happened? Without an accepted universal language, it'd be a dangerous gambit. In a sense, individuals can buy fluency, but the opportunity costs is tremendous. Few can afford it.

[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM. Reason : converting the masses]

6/2/2008 10:42:59 AM

^

OK, I am not going to respond to another line-by-line breakdown. I'm done here. Have a nice day.

6/2/2008 3:24:45 PM

I don't think people evolved different languages because they wanted to, I think they did so because of isolation between civilizations. Actually, I pretty much know this.

Why does everyone keep their own separate languages? Well, because they're fucking awesome.

6/2/2008 3:29:31 PM

Quote :

"I don't think people evolved different languages because they wanted to, I think they did so because of isolation between civilizations. Actually, I pretty much know this."

Exactly. That's why Smoker4's argument confuses me. Yes, language is associated with culture and used as a point of cultural pride. Communication remains the main function. I can invent in-group jargon and retain my ability to understand other English speakers. Languages are used for such hierarchical purposes because they're available That's not what created them. (Not the primary thing, anyway.)

Quote :

"Why does everyone keep their own separate languages? Well, because they're fucking awesome."

Sure. I don't want to destroy any languages. I think we have our cake and eat it too.

6/2/2008 4:32:56 PM

Quote :

"What character did a Japanese person not know at a museum?"

I can understand at a museum: perhaps its some sort of archaic concept that's faded into history or a religious or cultural idea that's not common knowledge to the general public. That, or perhaps a more complex form that's been replaced by a simplified character.

Then again, they say that Japanese retention of kanji is slipping. I wish I could find the article, but there was an amusing story in one of the papers about how job applicants would whip out their cell phones to look up characters on job applications that they didn't recognize (to the lament of the recruiters and managers). I'm sure a lot of this is simply the sort of "kids these days" type of thing, but it was pretty funny and came to mind when I read your comment.

Quote :

"Yeah that's bullcrap. Japanese could get along just fine without kanji. But you have a bunch of traditionalists who use that homophone argument as a justification of the kanji. It's all about context clues "

You can probably get by day-to-day without kanji for basic things, but for items where you need precision, such as legal documents, academic texts, and newspapers, you can't go completely without them. You could also make the argument that kanji studies improves vocabulary, but that's more on the lines of how studying Latin improves English vocabulary. Sure, it's beneficial but hardly critical even for academics.

6/2/2008 4:34:06 PM

Quote :

"I think they did so because of isolation between civilizations"

LOL ... yea, because the French, the English, the German peoples, all completely isolated throughout history ... I especially want to hear the explanation of this one with all the cognates and loan words and such between languages ...

6/4/2008 1:47:32 AM

Civilizations splinter, n'est-ce pas?

6/4/2008 3:01:26 AM

^^^ I don't understand how kanji is necessary for legal documents, etc. Korean doesn't use them and gets along just fine. Maybe they would have to tweak some things in regards to punctuation, but I honestly don't think there would need to be major changes to drop kanji from the writing system. And I also don't believe it would be impossible. I think it would get phased out or further simplified over the years.

Quote :

""What character did a Japanese person not know at a museum?""

It was "haka" which means tomb or grave. So yeah, a pretty common word

Yesterday I was talking to her online and she didn't know the reading for the kanji "aza" (bruise) and I confused the crap out of her.

6/4/2008 3:37:04 AM

Quote :

"Americans complain about people who speak fluently but have thick accents. "

Let's not get too specialized in our attacks, the French are world-renowned for doing the same goddamned thing.

Quote :

"I value easy communicate between all people. The lack of a common language impedes this."

"All people" do not need to communicate, not yet and not any time in the immediate future. There is limited capital, political and otherwise, to deal with problems. Let's take them as they come and not blow it on issues that won't really become important for another few decades.

Look, I get that you're on your futurist bent. I'll even pretend for the moment to respect it. But at any rate, of all the problems facing the world today, lack of a common language ranks fairly low because it, in and of itself, is not killing people in carload lots. We do still have AIDS to deal with, k?

Quote :

"Hierarchy, for example."

For what it's worth, the concept seems to have done OK by insects and most other social animals.

Quote :

"That's the ideal I'm working toward, yes. "

This is really my basic problem with futurists, that you look so far into the future that you have this tendency to push for problems that will be very important there but are far less important than the threats facing us this very minute. This is to say nothing about how intractable and unsolvable the problems you tend to discuss may be.

Quote :

"You're dead-set on characterizing my position as religious, aren't you?"

To a certain extent he has a point. Far-off futurists like yourself have to take certain concepts more-or-less on faith, because who knows what's coming, really? You're making a guess about what is to come. The same thing is said disparagingly about religions quite frequently. And both groups have in common that ultimately they're basing their predictions on jack-all. Science gets real fuzzy just after the present, and you're shooting way past that.

Based on your posts in this forum it's quite clear that you think your principles, intertwined as they are with futurism or whatever the hell you call your branch of astrology, are not only inevitable but morally appropriate.

So fine, maybe you're not religious because you don't espouse an invisible deity. But whatever the word for you is, it's not that far off.

6/4/2008 3:49:51 AM

^ People put faith (what it's called) in science, too.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: For what it's worth, the concept seems to have done OK by insects and most other social animals."

You set such high expectations for us...

Perpetuating a hierarchy that exists to reinforce the hierarchy seems like a waste of a perfectly good forebrain, no?

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Science gets real fuzzy just after the present, and you're shooting way past that."

You read much science, lately?

Science is pretty damned fuzzy about the present, and damned near silent on the matter of time itself.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 4:29 AM. Reason : ...]

6/4/2008 4:27:12 AM

Quote :

"Perpetuating a hierarchy that exists to reinforce the hierarchy seems like a waste of a perfectly good forebrain, no?"

Fair enough. I don't oppose hierarchies for the sake of opposing hierarchies, as, apparently, do some. I'm firmly in the camp of the meritocrats. Let the current hierarchy disappear with each generation. But let's not run around acting like everyone is equal beyond the basic moral sense.

Quote :

"People put faith (what it's called) in science, too."

Yeah, and when a wolfwebber with religion points it out like that, he gets, well, crucified.

Quote :

"You read much science, lately? Science is pretty damned fuzzy about the present, and damned near silent on the matter of time itself. "

I was attempting to take a fairly liberal hand with it. To contend with GoldenViper's point, I don't need to get into the time-consuming minutiae of science as it relates with the present. I'm an old enough hand on this board to realize when some efforts are wasted and irrelevant

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 4:35 AM. Reason : well, if you're going to edit and add a bunch of shit, so will I]

6/4/2008 4:32:45 AM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: I don't oppose hierarchies for the sake of opposing hierarchies, as, apparently, do some."

We can leave the emo cutter kids on Myspace out of this.

I oppose hierarchies because they lead to degraded information quality. Simple as that. Any functioning information system ought have as few barriers to communication from its constituents as possible. Doesn't matter if the system is biological, economic, political, or even technological, this holds true.

You wouldn't buy a computer that was forced to "bow," "stand at attention," or "say please," before receiving data packets from servers, would you?

Probably not. It'd lead to an inefficient Web surfing experience for you, an unnecessarily short battery life for your laptop, and eventually, lower customer retention rates for whomever sold those shitty computers.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: But let's not run around acting like everyone is equal beyond the basic moral sense."

Oh?

What basic moral sense is that?

Further, just what did those whose definitions of that basic moral sense do, learn, or accomplish to merit responsibility for such an enlightened role?

As per crucifixion, not so. The Holy Church of Science (HCS) does employ many vicious allies on TWW to attack such a notion, but the beauty of science is its currency: observable facts. As my long-winded responses in the thread about aliens below demonstrates, the facts can undermine the HCS in ways that even its followers have to recognize:

http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=508929&page=1


[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 5:03 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 5:03 AM. Reason : ...LOL]

6/4/2008 4:52:46 AM

Quote :

"LOL ... yea, because the French, the English, the German peoples, all completely isolated throughout history ... I especially want to hear the explanation of this one with all the cognates and loan words and such between languages ..."

Your argument still doesn't make much sense. It's all assumed proactive - why didn't they go out of their way to merge all the languages when they had more contact? And not being completely isolated doesn't mean you're not almost completely isolated. Depending on your sense of history, you could say European languages evolved relatively recently, but they sure didn't have the internet back then.

6/4/2008 7:31:31 AM

Quote :

"Let's not get too specialized in our attacks, the French are world-renowned for doing the same goddamned thing."

Yes, the French are infamous language Nazis. I don't know if it's true, but I'd rate the French as the least likely to accept less proficient or nonstandard speakers of their tongue. That's the stereotype.

Quote :

"But at any rate, of all the problems facing the world today, lack of a common language ranks fairly low because it, in and of itself, is not killing people in carload lots. We do still have AIDS to deal with, k?"

When did I suggest dropping everything in order to teach everyone a universal language? I don't believe anyone has suggested that. However, I'll reiterate that the language barrier's a real problem that affects people daily. For example, when I was in Mexico, the main thing I heard from migrant workers is that they wanted to learn English. Because of the communication problem, the workers can't easily tell their bosses what skills they have or argue with them over mistreatment. It's not something only futurists care about. Far from it.

Quote :

"Far-off futurists like yourself have to take certain concepts more-or-less on faith, because who knows what's coming, really?"

But I don't. I'm not banking on being able to ascend to Kurzweil's posthuman heaven. I hope I'll last that long. I'll do my best to push events in direction. There's no certainty. Like anyone else, I could get hit by bus today.

Quote :

"And both groups have in common that ultimately they're basing their predictions on jack-all."

Should me the progress curve that suggest traditional Rapture. That historical data forms the foundation of Kurzweil's predictions. While it could change, that's where we're headed now. The advancement's real and measurable.

Quote :

"Based on your posts in this forum it's quite clear that you think your principles, intertwined as they are with futurism or whatever the hell you call your branch of astrology, are not only inevitable but morally appropriate."

I'd be for anarchism even if we got blasted back to the Stone Age. That's closer to a religious point of view than looking at a graph and predicting what tech will be available in 2029. Like any value system, anarchism can't be fully supported by facts. It describes certain things, such as freedom, as good, and others, such as oppression, as bad. There's no empirical evidence for this. Science can't make those kind of judgments.

Quote :

"Yeah, and when a wolfwebber with religion points it out like that, he gets, well, crucified."

Simply believing your senses, as we tend to, can be described as an act of faith. I've enough familiarity with philosophy to know that. Hardcore skepticism's a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

6/4/2008 9:58:38 AM

Quote :

"You wouldn't buy a computer that was forced to "bow," "stand at attention," or "say please," before receiving data packets from servers, would you?"

Hierarchy doesn't imply a system of archaic social displays. These are not necessary to have a certain degree of chain of command and specialization, though.

Information also gets degraded when every idiot in the world gets to provide their ideas with equal say regardless of qualification or intelligence. Just look at the internet.

Quote :

"What basic moral sense is that? "

You know, I don't know, and it's really not relevant to the point I was making. Presumably there are certain equal rights everybody has. Maybe they don't. I don't care right now.

My point is that, obviously enough, some people are better at things than other. Some people are smarter than others. Probably some people are more qualified to make certain decisions than are others.

6/4/2008 12:42:42 PM

Quote :

"Your argument still doesn't make much sense. It's all assumed proactive - why didn't they go out of their way to merge all the languages when they had more contact?"

Because "they" didn't want to. This goes back to my general theme that language is a _preference_ and not some arbitrarily "evolved" thing.

Just to elucidate how silly your premise of "isolation" is:

Look at Japanese versus "Chinese" (what we'd call Mandarin today). The Japanese have a kanji script explicitly BECAUSE of cross-cultural sharing of language concepts. Chinese scholars talked to Japanese scholars and, poof, a written script was born. It's that simple. One certainly COULD have adopted the "other"'s language in addition to script. The emperor could have learned and mandated the official language.

Taking this idea further, let me ask you this -- in TODAY'S world, why do tens of millions of people in China speak Cantonese, whereas the official language is Mandarin? Many of them know both and so it wouldn't be THAT hard just to do away with Cantonese entirely, really. Keep in mind we're talking about the SAME COUNTRY here, that has an authoritarian government that dictates every detail of the "official" script to its people.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 1:27 PM. Reason : foo]

6/4/2008 1:26:51 PM

Quote :

"This goes back to my general theme that language is a _preference_ and not some arbitrarily "evolved" thing."

I reiterate that I didn't choose English over Mandarin. I learned what my parents spoke. Perhaps you were offered options. I wasn't. And it's not easy picking up another language. I'm trying, but it takes time and effort.

I don't type in English because I prefer it. I do so because it's what I know and what I expect my audience to know.

6/4/2008 2:27:42 PM

Quote :

"I don't understand how kanji is necessary for legal documents, etc. Korean doesn't use them and gets along just fine. Maybe they would have to tweak some things in regards to punctuation, but I honestly don't think there would need to be major changes to drop kanji from the writing system. And I also don't believe it would be impossible. I think it would get phased out or further simplified over the years."

The Hanja (Chinese characters) is still necessary for academic and legal settings where absolute precision is needed. As the South Korean vocabulary stands right now, there are too many homonyms to allow for the precision needed. The North Koreans were able to completely ditch Hanja but it required a substantial modification of the basic vocabulary (substantial in a way that only a totalitarian dictatorship who worships their leader as a god could pull off). I agree that Korean is evolving in that direction, but they're not quite ready to cut the cord yet.

6/4/2008 2:29:18 PM

^^

You'd think genius futurist boy could come up with a better reply than that. What, this idea isn't in one of your books?

I'm not talking specifically about YOU. YOU are not the authority who decides everything for everybody. I am talking about SOCIETY, about the preferences that people (either democratically or through their leaders) express. You didn't choose English. But our society has chosen English.

For example: we have a massive influx of Mexican immigrants. They want bi-lingual education. And guess what? California passed Prop 227 against it. Society -- through direct democracy -- made a choice. You type in English because it's what you know, but you know it because we as a society never made it a point to change that fact.

But some societies do.

Consider Indonesia. As a nation they speak several hundred different languages; but they also have adopted a second language, their own lingua franca, Bahasa Indonesia. Their society chose the bilingual approach to language.

Society chooses. Just because YOU aren't the autocratic dictator who chooses everything, doesn't mean that people collectively don't express preferences. There's a lot of stuff YOU didn't choose, that was chosen for you, but is still the result of conscious action. Imagine that!

6/4/2008 8:40:19 PM

that's pretty much what i thought when i posted in here

message_topic.aspx?topic=528606&page=2#11663639

6/4/2008 8:52:19 PM

Quote :

"You didn't choose English. But our society has chosen English."

And this, of course, is completely different from the type of choice you suggested earlier. For the vast majority of human beings, picking a language isn't like buying bread. That's not how people acquire language. Consult linguistics if you don't believe me. Equating language with marketplace preference fails for this reason.

I'm quite aware that countries and communities chose to maintain languages. Linguistic pride's part of that. The difficulty of learning a new language would be another. The preference comes from the context. People choose English because that's what the know. They know it because that's what everyone else around them speaks. Against, it ain't like Wal-Mart. To put it in economic terms, folks favor their native tongue because it's free, while the foreign language costs a lot.

Do you disagree? Do you have the extraordinary ability to pick a new language in a week? In short, what's the big deal? Why are you flipping out again?

Quote :

"Just because YOU aren't the autocratic dictator who chooses everything, doesn't mean that people collectively don't express preferences."

I'm not sure where you've gotten the notion that I want to declare myself dictator and force Earth's population to learn Esperanto. Has anyone suggested that? If I were to push for an international language, I'd do it peacefully. I'd try to convince folks of the advantages. If I were successful, they'd then choose to learn the said language. Are you arguing people shouldn't attempt alter other people's preferences?

6/4/2008 9:01:36 PM

Quote :

"When did I suggest dropping everything in order to teach everyone a universal language? I don't believe anyone has suggested that. However, I'll reiterate that the language barrier's a real problem that affects people daily. For example, when I was in Mexico, the main thing I heard from migrant workers is that they wanted to learn English. Because of the communication problem, the workers can't easily tell their bosses what skills they have or argue with them over mistreatment. It's not something only futurists care about. Far from it."

Well, that's one way to look at it. Or I'd say the language barrier isn't really the issue, because their bosses (presumably the ones rich enough to hire/fire and mistreat) choose not to learn Spanish (and probably vote for prop 227, too).

Actually I'll turn this whole statement you're making on its head -- I'd say that economic globalization proceeds at a remarkable pace _in spite of_ the supposed language barrier. I'm not even sure it's a real cost. Regional executives handle off-shoring for most major companies; they are rich and speak several languages. The socio-economic disparity on the ground often goes through them.

6/4/2008 9:05:28 PM

^^

I don't have an extraordinary ability to pick up language. But kids do. Everyone knows this.

Thanks for ignoring my Prop 227 example. I gave it for a reason. The issue wasn't that people chose not to adopt a new language. They chose for their KIDS not to adopt a SECOND language. Pure preference, that -- from liberal, rich, Americans, too.

Again, I am talking about SOCIETY; and society consists of many generations. Clearly no linguistic change happens in a single generation, but the language acquisition machines that are kids manage quite well at absorbing it.

As to what I was "suggesting," that is purely a construct in your mind.

6/4/2008 9:11:11 PM

We must live in different worlds. It's a real cost because translators get paid. No, this doesn't mean that teaching everyone a single language would be cheaper. I accept your arguments about the current difficulty of the project. However, if I were to wave a magic wand and give everyone a universal translator, I assure you it'd provide considerable economic and especially intellectual benefits. I've been personally harmed by the language barrier countless times. Haven't you? Don't you ever encounter untranslated works in another tongue you'd like to read?

Quote :

"The issue wasn't that people chose not to adopt a new language. They chose for their KIDS not to adopt a SECOND language. Pure preference, that -- from liberal, rich, Americans, too."

I hadn't considered it from that angle. You're right that preference is part of the picture. As you might expect, though, I have some choice words for Prop 227 and its supporters. In Spanish if necessary.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 9:22 PM. Reason : Prop 227]

6/4/2008 9:12:45 PM

^

You really can't just read anything I write, can you?

Smoker4:

Quote :

"Regional executives handle off-shoring for most major companies"

Which part of the concept of a regional executive don't you quite understand? Or are you just making another bizarre out-of-context reply that has nothing to do with what I was writing about?

Man, I need to pay a translator to talk to you.

6/4/2008 9:17:40 PM

^ I don't see how the quote negates anything I typed. Do you believe that's as far as the economic impact of language goes?

If you stumbled across a universal translator design, would you discard it or attempt to sell it? Think about that for a moment. It'll tell you all you need to know about the economic effect.

6/4/2008 9:25:02 PM

^

I was talking about the economic impact of language in the context of global business, which was what you were using as an example. The migrant Spanish-speaking worker with English-speaking bosses.

Do you really want to have a broader discussion about how to quantify the total economic effects of language barriers? Really? You think either of us will figure that out anytime soon, even if we came to common ground?

Sounds like a waste of my time, personally. The point of what I said was to show a different way of looking at a particular situation you were describing. If you didn't want to discuss a particular situation, why did you post an example?

6/4/2008 11:14:54 PM

^ Some bosses might benefit from the language barrier. I'll grant that much. It's easier to oppress folks who don't speak the dominant tongue. The workers, however, would clearly benefit from knowing English. A universal translator would hurt certain people but aid many others. Even the Anglo bosses in our example could conceivably benefit from better knowledge about employee skills. Not to mention better costumer service for English speakers and so on.

6/4/2008 11:24:21 PM

Quote :

"As the South Korean vocabulary stands right now, there are too many homonyms to allow for the precision needed. "

My understanding is hangul is the sole writing system used in both Koreas. I do know that Chinese characters are not taught in grade school unless something has recently changed.

6/5/2008 3:30:55 AM

^^

Well, I think I said the bosses could learn Spanish. Is there something magically keeping them from that? Do the bosses in your example need to be fluent to talk to workers about basic skills? I mean, managers in fast food restaurants seem to get by all the time by learning "enough" to communicate.

It sounds to me like, in your particular example, the guys just work for a bunch of pricks. Who cares if they don't speak English? Their bosses will still be pricks. Overcoming the language barrier is meaningless if your boss doesn't care to begin with.

How about call centers? U.S. companies are getting by just fine with them. People overseas are, despite this enormous "language barrier," trained not only to speak to Americans in English but also with a proper dialect and intonation.

You talk about the language barrier being so expensive. I just don't see it. Arguably it hampers tourism (unlikely, it's not like you need to be fluent to be a tourist). Or business (clearly not, businesses are getting by just fine). Reading "untranslated books" (all five of them). Cultural exchange (of course language is a part of culture, and learning it actually facilitates exchange for reasons other than information).

6/5/2008 4:24:48 AM

Quote :

"How about call centers? U.S. companies are getting by just fine with them. People overseas are, despite this enormous "language barrier," trained not only to speak to Americans in English but also with a proper dialect and intonation. "

Too bad they haven't been trained on how to actually answer a customer's question 9 times out of 10 when I'm put through to a call center in India I get shitty help.

6/5/2008 4:37:19 AM

^

The job of a customer service center is to help?

If only ...

6/5/2008 4:51:59 AM

Actually I've gotten very good customer service from call centers. But it's never been one based out of India. I know they like to claim you can't tell, but you can.

I read an interesting article from a guy who used to be the manager of an Indian call center. They basically teach them how to pick up on a keyword when someone it bitching and then run with it. Sometimes though that keyword can have absolutely nothing to do with why you're calling, which apparently led to some interesting phone calls sometimes.

6/5/2008 4:55:57 AM

Quote :

"You talk about the language barrier being so expensive. I just don't see it. Arguably it hampers tourism (unlikely, it's not like you need to be fluent to be a tourist). Or business (clearly not, businesses are getting by just fine)."

This logic doesn't work. The fact that both tourism and business happens with the language barrier in no way proves they aren't hindered by the it. Look, it's really as simple as my earlier example. Just imagine how much money you'd make if you invented a universal translator. That should show how much the barrier costs.

Quote :

"Reading "untranslated books" (all five of them)."

That's an English-centric point of view and still exaggerated. Yes, most popular books get translated into English. Obscure books and many articles do not. Speakers of minor language may lack access to countless useful and interesting works.

[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 10:49 AM. Reason : universal]

6/5/2008 10:48:46 AM

Quote :

"Just imagine how much money you'd make if you invented a universal translator. That should show how much the barrier costs."

Hah, a socialist using the price system to perform economic calculation in order to prove a point. Priceless.

BTW, you are absolutely correct. The fact that you would make a ton of money off a translator proves that the language barrier is costly, since people wouldn't buy such a device unless it saved them more than you were charging for it.

6/5/2008 11:06:35 AM

You caught me. We were talking about economic effect. I don't ignore then existing structures because I dislike them. The market provides useful information.

6/5/2008 1:49:09 PM

^

I like how in all these discussions about how much it costs to hire translators, overcome the language barrier, etc. -- it never comes up, ever, how much it would cost to actually develop and build a universal translator.

Apparently in your world:

* hiring humans and learning languages costs money
* developing futuristic technology is free

Did it ever occur to you that, even if developing a universal translator is possible (unlikely!), the cost of doing so might be prohibitively high anyway?

Oh wait, we don't talk about the economic effects of YOUR point of view here. That would require someone who knows something about the economics of building and developing technology (gee, wonder who that is in this discussion) ...

6/5/2008 9:50:35 PM

I maintain my position that I don't want to spend my time talking to a computer.

6/5/2008 11:19:05 PM

Quote :

"Didn't they try that with Esperanto and fail?"

6/6/2008 8:41:06 AM