English Brainpower Requirements
MC
suggests.
Researchers in Britain have found that people who speak Mandarin Chinese
use both sides of their brain to understand the language.
This compares to English-language speakers who only need to use one side
of their brain.
The researchers said the findings could boost understanding of how the
brain processes languages.
This, in turn, could one day help scientists to develop better ways of
helping people to re-learn languages after a stroke or similar damage to
the brain.
Dr Sophie Scott and colleagues at the Wellcome Trust carried out brain
scans on a group of Mandarin and English speakers.
They found that the left temporal lobe, which is located by the left
temple, becomes active when English speakers hear English.
The researchers believe that this area of the brain links speech sounds
together to form individual words.
They expected similar findings when they carried out scans on Mandarin
speakers.
However, they found that both their left and right temporal lobes become
active when they hear Mandarin.
"People who speak different sorts of languages use their brains to
decode speech in different ways," said Dr Scott.
"It overturned some long-held theories."
Mandarin is a notoriously difficult language to learn. Unlike English,
speakers use intonation to distinguish between completely different
meanings of particular words.
For instance, the word "ma" can mean mother, scold, horse or hemp
depending on how it is said.
The researchers believe that this need to interpret intonation is why
Mandarin speakers need to use both sides of their brain.
The right temporal lobe is normally associated with being able to
process music or tones.
"We think that Mandarin speakers interpret intonation and melody in the
right temporal lobe to give the correct meaning to the spoken words,"
said Dr Scott.
"It seems that the structure of the language you learn as a child
affects how the structure of your brain develops to decode speech.
"Native English speakers, for example, find it extraordinarily difficult
to learn Mandarin."
Dr Scott said the findings could help scientists to understand how the
brain learns language.
It could be particularly useful in trying to understand how it re-learns
language after a stroke.
She suggested it could also lead to new drugs to help people who have
lost their language skills.
"There is evidence from other studies that certain drugs affect learning
in the brain regions that support hearing and speech," she said.
"This is something we can improve on."
Dr William Marslen-Wilson, of the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit
at Cambridge University, welcomed the study.
"It is an interesting finding," he told BBC News Online.
"Looking at languages that are very different from each other helps us
to understand how the brain processes language.
"It can also help us to understand language rehabilitation," he said.
"This field is really opening up but it is very early days."
The findings will be included in the summer science exhibition at the
Royal Society in London, which runs from 1 to 3 July.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/3025796.stm
Published: 2003/06/30 00:25:31 GMT
Simon R. Hughes
[Snip copyrighted story]
> Story from BBC NEWS:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/3025796.stm
>
> Published: 2003/06/30 00:25:31 GMT
Don't you think it's about time you stopped posting copyrighted
material (i.e. someone else's property) to Usenet? Post a link to
the story and a summary instead.
--
Simon R. Hughes <!-- Note correct email address. -->
<!-- Roger Rabbit for President!
(Don't say it couldn't happen.) -->
MC
Simon R. Hughes <a57998.remo...@yahoo.no> wrote:
> Thus spake MC:
>
> [Snip copyrighted story]
>
> > Story from BBC NEWS:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/3025796.stm
> >
> > Published: 2003/06/30 00:25:31 GMT
>
> Don't you think it's about time you stopped posting copyrighted
> material (i.e. someone else's property) to Usenet? Post a link to
> the story and a summary instead.
Don't you think it's time you stopped reacting to everything I post with
a putdown of some kind?
Simon R. Hughes
Don't exaggerate.
Dena Jo
> This compares to English-language speakers who only need to use
> one side of their brain.
And some, neither side!
--
Dena Jo
(Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2)
R F
Seriously, though, MC, this is just my opinion here, and we all like and
respect you as friends and brethren, but I don't see the point in posting
a gazillion journalistic news articles every day. They do not promote
useful and happy discussion, one. I would suggest maybe posting a
*quotation*, a brief one, from such an article, and maybe incorporating it
into a posting written *by you* designed to promote a useful and happy
discussion.
MC
R F <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> wrote:
> > Don't you think it's time you stopped reacting to everything I post with
> > a putdown of some kind?
>
> Seriously, though, MC, this is just my opinion here, and we all like and
> respect you as friends and brethren, but I don't see the point in posting
> a gazillion journalistic news articles every day. They do not promote
> useful and happy discussion, one. I would suggest maybe posting a
> *quotation*, a brief one, from such an article, and maybe incorporating it
> into a posting written *by you* designed to promote a useful and happy
> discussion.
Fine. No problem. I'll be happy to comply with this request. I clearly
misjudged the mood of the group on this matter. And I thank you for not
leaping down my throat in the manner of so many of my other friends and
brethren.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> From http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/ :
>
> "Use of BBCi
>
> You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast,
> transmit or otherwise use BBCi content in any way except for your own
> personal, non-commercial use."
>
> Personally, I would infer the use to be personal and non-commercial.
I'm not familiar with the terms used in UK copyright law, but in the
US I'd expect such a notice to have said "private" rather than
"personal". If the same notion is meant, I'd expect that posting it
to a public newsgroup like this would be considered either a
publication or public performance here and not covered by such a
license.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There's been so much ado already
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that any further ado would be
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |excessive.
| Lori Karkosky
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
R F
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> Robert Walker <rwal...@nospam.net> writes:
>
> > From http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/ :
> >
> > "Use of BBCi
> >
> > You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast,
> > transmit or otherwise use BBCi content in any way except for your own
> > personal, non-commercial use."
> >
> > Personally, I would infer the use to be personal and non-commercial.
>
> I'm not familiar with the terms used in UK copyright law, but in the
> US I'd expect such a notice to have said "private" rather than
> "personal".
I dunno, but I'm sure that that's what they mean by "personal". Suppose
one instead posted, each day, the entire contents of a newspaper to a
newsgroup. It's no different.
MC
If quoting an extract is permissible (as has been suggested) and quoting
an article is not, what exactly is the cutoff point?
R F
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Robert Walker wrote:
> Simon R. Hughes <a57998.remo...@yahoo.no> wrote:
>
> >Thus spake MC:
> >> In article <MPG.19f9bf67f...@news.online.no>,
> >> Simon R. Hughes <a57998.remo...@yahoo.no> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thus spake MC:
> >> >
> >> > [Snip copyrighted story]
> >> >
> >> > > Story from BBC NEWS:
> >> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/3025796.stm
> >> > >
> >> > > Published: 2003/06/30 00:25:31 GMT
> >> >
> >> > Don't you think it's about time you stopped posting copyrighted
> >> > material (i.e. someone else's property) to Usenet? Post a link to
> >> > the story and a summary instead.
> >>
> >> Don't you think it's time you stopped reacting to everything I post with
> >> a putdown of some kind?
> >
> >Don't exaggerate.
>
> From http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/ :
>
> "Use of BBCi
>
> You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast,
> transmit or otherwise use BBCi content in any way except for your own
> personal, non-commercial use."
>
>
> Personally, I would infer the use to be personal and non-commercial.
It's definitely non-commercial. Do they mean "personal AND
non-commercial" or "personal XOR non-commercial", is the question. I
think the comma is an AND. This isn't personal. This is AUE.
> It wouldn't hurt you to be a tad less persnickety, plus, the matter is
> clearly none of your business.
I'm not so sure. A powerful entity like the BBC might attempt to take
action against ISPs and the like who provide people with access to AUE.
The BBC is so entangled with the UK state (even though it's not part of
that state) that the Crown itself might try to stamp out AUE. Suddenly
you'd have John Dean facing conflicts of interest he'd never dreamt of.
I mean, we're not talking a Mark Israel here.
BTW, there's actually some issue of whether posting a mere *link*, a URL,
to something constitutes a copyright violation.
Donna Richoux
Like, is quoting 119 words OK, but 120 words is not? It doesn't work
that way.
Try this article, particularly the part about "fair use" and the links:
10 Big Myths about copyright explained
By Brad Templeton
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Evan Kirshenbaum
> If quoting an extract is permissible (as has been suggested) and quoting
> an article is not, what exactly is the cutoff point?
There isn't an "exactly". You're getting into the area of "fair use",
and you'd need an attorney conversant with the area to cite precedent,
but the statute says (17 USC 107)
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular
case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such
use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation
to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value
of the copyrighted work.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
If the article is considered the "copyrighted work as a whole", point
three is working against you if you quote the whole thing. If the
copyrighted work as a whole is the newspaper or web site, you're
safer. I *believe* (but I Am Not A Lawyer) that in such cases, the
article is usually considered the work, and so the fact that it was
both big (amount) and that you quoted all of it (substantiality in
raltion to the work as a whole) would tend toward a finding of "not
fair use". Point four could also argue against it being fair use,
since you could have provided an excerpt and linked to the work, by
not doing so it could be argued that people who would otherwise have
been intrested enough to go to the source will now not do so.
On the other hand, the fact that such quoting of news sources is
routine on Usenet might (mind you I said "might") be construed as
making it arguable that the "character of the use", beyond being
non-commercial, is presumptively fair use.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |A handgun is like a Lawyer. You
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |don't want it lying around where
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the children might be exposed to
|it, but when you need one, you need
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |it RIGHT NOW, and nothing else will
(650)857-7572 |do.
| Bill McNutt
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
R F
I'd say you're in trouble if your excerpt is more than half of the
original article.
R F
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Donna Richoux wrote:
> Like, is quoting 119 words OK, but 120 words is not? It doesn't work
> that way.
>
> Try this article, particularly the part about "fair use" and the links:
>
> 10 Big Myths about copyright explained
> By Brad Templeton
> http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
This guy has a very strong anti-fair-use bias, note.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> BTW, there's actually some issue of whether posting a mere *link*, a
> URL, to something constitutes a copyright violation.
Is there? How? I can see it being a breach of confidentiality or
possibly violate the terms of a license under which it was disclosed
to you, and I could see how you could be considered an incitement to
harrassment, but I don't see how it could be a copyright violation.
The arguments I remember had to do with whether it was a copyright
violation for your page to refer by URL if such referral could be
expected to cause your client's browser to transparently include the
referred content as if it were part of your document. I'm not sure if
that was ever actually litigated, but the consensus in the community
was that such use wasn't fair use.
But a link posted *as* a link would seem to be fair game.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It is a popular delusion that the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |government wastes vast amounts of
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |money through inefficiency and sloth.
|Enormous effort and elaborate
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |planning are required to waste this
(650)857-7572 |much money
| P.J. O'Rourke
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Simon R. Hughes
> It wouldn't hurt you to be a tad less persnickety, plus, the matter is
> clearly none of your business.
Sorry, who the Hell are you?
I think I hear the TV calling your name.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Did you get that from what he wrote on the page or from elsewhere? I
didn't get that from his discussion there. Granted, he didn't go into
some of the areas that don't touch Usenet postings (e.g., reproducing
materials for a class, recording broadcasts for later private viewing,
private performance, making copies for backup), but it seemed pretty
balanced as a short discussion of fair use with respect to quoting a
copyrighted work in a public forum.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
R F
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> R F <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Donna Richoux wrote:
> >
> > > Try this article, particularly the part about "fair use" and the
> > > links:
> > >
> > > 10 Big Myths about copyright explained
> > > By Brad Templeton
> > > http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
> >
> > This guy has a very strong anti-fair-use bias, note.
>
> Did you get that from what he wrote on the page or from elsewhere? I
> didn't get that from his discussion there. Granted, he didn't go into
> some of the areas that don't touch Usenet postings (e.g., reproducing
> materials for a class, recording broadcasts for later private viewing,
> private performance, making copies for backup), but it seemed pretty
> balanced as a short discussion of fair use with respect to quoting a
> copyrighted work in a public forum.
I've read his "10 big myths" stuff before. He's an extremist who doesn't
know what he's talking about. Why you people give him the time of day I
don't know.
R F
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> R F <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> writes:
>
> > BTW, there's actually some issue of whether posting a mere *link*, a
> > URL, to something constitutes a copyright violation.
>
> Is there? How? I can see it being a breach of confidentiality or
> possibly violate the terms of a license under which it was disclosed
> to you, and I could see how you could be considered an incitement to
> harrassment, but I don't see how it could be a copyright violation.
The link itself is seen as the copying of the thing linked-to. Seems
bogus to me, BWDIKIJATP. Dunno if any courts have said anything on't.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Since that's the document pointed to, presumably there's something
extreme in it. If so, I missed it. I wouldn't think that someone
with a "very strong anti-fair-use bias" would write
Note that most inclusion of text in Usenet followups is for
commentary and reply, and it doesn't damage the commercial value
of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it is fair
use.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
> > R F <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> writes:
> >
> > > BTW, there's actually some issue of whether posting a mere
> > > *link*, a URL, to something constitutes a copyright violation.
> >
> > Is there? How? I can see it being a breach of confidentiality or
> > possibly violate the terms of a license under which it was
> > disclosed to you, and I could see how you could be considered an
> > incitement to harrassment, but I don't see how it could be a
> > copyright violation.
>
> The link itself is seen as the copying of the thing linked-to.
That would be akin to treating an ISBN as a copy of the book. Or a
citation in a list of references as a copy of the work referred to.
> Seems bogus to me, BWDIKIJATP. Dunno if any courts have said
> anything on't.
I find it hard to believe that it would get far enough for them to be
able to laugh at it. Do you have a pointer to where this has been
discussed?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If you think health care is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |expensive now, wait until you see
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |what it costs when it's free.
| P.J. O'Rourke
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Aaron J. Dinkin
> R F <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> writes:
>
>> The link itself is seen as the copying of the thing linked-to.
>
> That would be akin to treating an ISBN as a copy of the book. Or a
> citation in a list of references as a copy of the work referred to.
>
>> Seems bogus to me, BWDIKIJATP. Dunno if any courts have said
>> anything on't.
>
> I find it hard to believe that it would get far enough for them to be
> able to laugh at it. Do you have a pointer to where this has been
> discussed?
Brad Templeton has an article on it at
<http://www.templetons.com/brad/linkright.html>.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Tony Cooper
wrote:
Areff is the PIC of what posters should, and should not, include in
their submissions. He takes this office very seriously and prides
himself on both his style and his dedication. NTARGAD
Simon is the PIC of Being Against Everything. He is better at Being
Against Everything he doesn't understand, but will turn viciously
against a familiar concept if it comes from the right source.
Sand is the PIC of Being Depressed by Anything. Riggs the PIC of
Unwarranted Attacks, and I am running for the office of Gadfly.
Charles Riggs
<tony_co...@mungedyahoo.com> wrote:
>Riggs the PIC of
>Unwarranted Attacks, and I am running for the office of Gadfly.
Except for the one post where I was thinking about one person and
writing about another ("Shit happens", as the saying goes), all my
attacks are fully warranted. Guaranteed, even, when I notice someone
being particularly offensive or know they have a coloured history of
being offensive.
--
Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggsŚatŚeircomŚdotŚnet
Simon R. Hughes
Interesting how the configurations remain consistent. Anyone would
think it's conscious.
> Simon is the PIC of Being Against Everything. He is better at Being
> Against Everything he doesn't understand, but will turn viciously
> against a familiar concept if it comes from the right source.
Evidence?
Tony Cooper
<a57998.remo...@yahoo.no> wrote:
>Thus spake Tony Cooper:
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:18:14 -0400, MC <cop...@AMZAPca.inter.net>
>> wrote:
>
>Interesting how the configurations remain consistent. Anyone would
>think it's conscious.
>
>> Simon is the PIC of Being Against Everything. He is better at Being
>> Against Everything he doesn't understand, but will turn viciously
>> against a familiar concept if it comes from the right source.
>
>Evidence?
I knew you'd object to my post. You're at least consistent.
Simon R. Hughes
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 16:55:19 +0200, Simon R. Hughes
> <a57998.remo...@yahoo.no> wrote:
>
> >Thus spake Tony Cooper:
> >> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:18:14 -0400, MC <cop...@AMZAPca.inter.net>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >Interesting how the configurations remain consistent. Anyone would
> >think it's conscious.
> >
> >> Simon is the PIC of Being Against Everything. He is better at Being
> >> Against Everything he doesn't understand, but will turn viciously
> >> against a familiar concept if it comes from the right source.
> >
> >Evidence?
>
> I knew you'd object to my post. You're at least consistent.
Wot, no evidence?