It should never have been changed.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Noted.

Down that road lie tækoze and qweezadillers and meckizmer and bollies and berries. I shan’t be biting.

@Cerberus However, despite agreeing that English speakers can decide how English words should be said, people who pronounce Pinyin-romanized Chinese words as if those words were spelled according to English rules need to be corrected. Sternly.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Uhm huh, what?

Good luck with that. Would like some brooshetters with your meal, sir?

@Cerberus eg People who pronounce "feng shui" as feng shooey

Instead of "fung shway"

They are wrong

If they can't handle pinyin romanization, fine, change the spelling to something more englishy.

People will always pronounce letters in new words the same way as they have always pronounced letters in old words.

It is nigheve to assert otherwise.

It bugs me when people pronounce Beijing as beige-ing. It's bei jing.

Beige, brown, wan. It’s all the same.

Maybe dun would work better.

How about stripes: dun & bradstreet?

Where’s the stripe?

I don’t know many streets named after two different people.

I suppose you could have a dun & bradstreet czech, or even a plaid or houndstooth.

Paisley.

I & paisley?

Pronounced parsley by the Brits. Only the Irish have paisley.

Do they have it i⁊?

Ask Gregg.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 So...what should be done with that abominable lot?

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I say Peking.

@Cerberus Good for you.

D'oh.

I also say Wenen.

And Parijs.

ij?

Pareeze?

@Cerberus Scrape it clear of snow, men.

Dao.

And Nieuw York? I don't know, that's probably New York. They sound the same anyway.

not Doh.

@Cerberus They should be given a time-out, made to stand in the corner wearing a dunce cap, and then must write on the blackboard "wo bu hui shuo ying wen" yi bai times.

@tchrist No, ij is quite different.

The Fallicornians say Noo York.

You couldn't pronounce it, it's somewhat closer to /ei/.

All I know is the French eat a light breakfast because one egg is un oeuf.

Of course not.

@MετάEd You mean the parking lot?

Déjà dit.

@Cerberus The abominable snow man lot.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 That would look silly. Why not in Chinese characters?

Gettin too Frosty in here for mere.

@MετάEd Oh, what is that about?

Meanwhile, I have meringues! Yay!

@Cerberus Please. They can barely handle pinyin.

Juana María Merínguez, cocinera famosísima.

It matters not what they can do, but what they ought to can (please change your language to include an infinitive can like any proper language kthxbai).

beäbles the dog

Pah.

That's better.

@Cerberus The Yeti.

Oh.

@Cerberus I don't think English speakers ought to can write Hanzi. In fact I'd probably be happier if the Chinese would just scrap Hanzi, the way the Koreans did. And the Vietnamese. And almost the Japanese.

OMG.

Heretic.

I preferred the heteromancer.

> Het informeren van het publiek als zedendelinquenten op vrije voeten komen, leidt er niet toe dat zij minder vaak opnieuw in de fout gaan. Pedoseksuelen verbieden te gaan wonen bij plaatsen waar veel kinderen komen, is ook zinloos. Dit blijkt uit vandaag verschenen onderzoek van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC) van het ministerie van Justitie.

Essentially all non-Chinese linguists and students studying Chinese reach the same conclusion. We claim it's because we're unbiased and can see the whole picture. The Chinese tend to reach the opposite conclusion and claim that Hanzi are important. The fact that they can make themselves understood orally gives lie to that though.

14 out of 50 questions closed on the front page. And probably another 14 are fine candidates for getting closed. Muh.

@RegDwighт I have nothing left but downvotes.

Well, it’s not a rainy day, so I guess it’s a Monday.

I’ve used all mine but two.

"Informing the public that a registered sex offender will be living in their neighbourhood doesn't help lower recidivism. Forbidding them from living near places where many children come is equally ineffective/useless. This has become clear in research carried out by the Ministry of Justice."

@Cerberus Is that your typo or theirs? Either way, it's unfortunate.

What I'm saying is I have to ignore all grace periods and go on a delete spree.

*recidivism

@MετάEd Haha yes, I thought it very fortunate. It was my typo.

@RegDwighт What exactly imposes a grace period on you?

So can we end the witch hunt now, please? Thank you. Paeophiles are people too. We're just lucky we don't have their disorder.

Facepalm.

@RegDwighт So you’re planning to skip beatification on your way to sainthood?

@MετάEd “First, do no harm.”

@Cerberus Er, go. Not come. Ick. Ergo.

Yes, go is better.

Come is a literal translation.

I saw.

What is it with this text and its Freudian slips?

It sounds like they are talking from the perspective of inside.

Eww.

@Cerberus If you are referring to sex offenders who committed crimes against young children, it is well known that they will keep doing it until you lock them up for good.

If the children come to where they already are is the only way it makes sense.

@MετάEd "It is well known": not well enough, I fear.

> Verplichte registratie bij de autoriteiten heeft bij de gevaarlijke zedendelinquenten mogelijk wel enig effect, stellen de onderzoekers. Toezicht en controle leiden alleen tot minder kans op recidive als ze worden gecombineerd met therapie.

@MετάEd Apparently, actual castration is remarkably effective like nothing else ever is.

Where by actual, of course I in this kinder and gentler world mean virtual/chemical.

@tchrist I'd rather lock them up. Castration is barbaric.

@MετάEd There are chemical treatments now.

We don’t require a sex-change operation.

"Compulsory registration may have some effect, researchers say. But supervision and check-ups only decrease recidivism if combined with therapy."

Chemical castration requires you to keep tabs on them. Lock 'em up.

So costly.

What's costly?

> Libidoremmende medicatie is ‘veelbelovend’. De effectiviteit van toezicht hangt verder af van de aard en intensiteit ervan, de relatie tussen delinquent en toezichthouder en randvoorwaarden zoals geschikte huisvesting.

Custodial care.

Really?

There is nothing to prevent a person from earning a living while incarcerated, and paying for their accomodation.

Down to seven. With some of them dupes.

That should do.

Sure there is. No more poorhouses.

You can’t send someone to debtors’ prison any longer.

Which is what forcing them to engage in slave-labor to pay for their incarceration seems like.

No good solution.

None.

"Medication that inhibits their libido is "promising". Supervision may be effective, depending on its character and intensity, on the relationship between delinquent and supervisor, and on other factors, like fitting housing."

@tchrist Being incarcerated because you are a danger to other people has nothing in common with debtor's prison.

Oh, I misread veelbelovend as well-beloved. :)

Haha.

Again!

@tchrist -nd- = present participle.

And I wouldn't say force someone to work. If someone doesn't work there should be a basic welfare situation.

@MετάEd No, but being charged for the privilege is getting closer.

It really is a sickening mess. I can think of no good “solution”.

@tchrist You're looking at it backwards. I think a person should have the same right to work in prison as out of it. I don't have a problem with someone earning a good living in prison.

And I also do not have a problem with presenting a person with a prison bill for basic services and, if they have assets and won't work, seizing those assets.

@MετάEd That doesn’t sound so off, but they don’t. They get charged for being there, and they get “paid” slave-wages. The US has a serious slave-labor culture in its prisons. Nearly all our licence plates, for example, are made there. I am unclear what portion of the economy comes through that route.

But I am very uncomfortable with it.

@MετάEd But I think most people would go bankrupt in a year if they had to pay for their prison stay. It's very expensive.

At least here.

@tchrist The problem there comes when prisoners' wages are not set by the market but are set at slave wage levels by the overseers.

Like hundreds of thousands a year.

I think here it is like 28-40k.

But I am not sure.

That would bankrupt me in a year.

@Cerberus That I find hard to believe.

Let me look it up.

Too much lobster.

lol

They used to feed our prisoners lobster because it was by-catch that nobody else would eat.

No kidding.

Basically a person in prison should be free to work, to negotiate wages, to run their own business, even to organize into labor unions. Work shouldn't be penalized. No pun intended. The point of prisons is to separate people from other people, not to turn them into slaves.

> De DJI stuurt op verzoek een gewogen specificatie van de gemiddelde kosten per plaats per dag op, uit de begroting voor 2012 en verder. Voor 2012 zijn de kosten begroot op 247 euro gemiddeld. Hiervan gaat 142 euro op aan personeel, 69 euro aan materieel en 36 euro aan ondersteuning.

That is € 247 per day.

@MετάEd But most work involves people. And it's not just to separate them, but to punish them.

@Cerberus Are any of those people making a contribution (in labor or cash) against that expense?

> Dirt-cheap because they were so copious, lobsters were routinely fed to prisoners, apprentices, slaves and children during the colonial era and beyond. In Massachusetts, some servants allegedly sought to avoid lobster-heavy diets by including stipulations in their contracts that they would only be served the shellfish twice a week.

So € 90,000 a year = $ 118,000.

@MετάEd Yes, probably, but I have no idea how much.

I thought we had outlawed indentured servitude.

@tchrist It's not indentured servitude if a person can choose not to work.

It's also not indentured servitude if a person can choose their employer, or choose to be self-employed.

Or if they can choose the term of employment.

But they cannot choose not to work if they rack up debt by being incarcerated.

They can go bankrupt?

Then why bother?

Yes. Bankruptcy would be reasonable.

So that would mean that any prison sentence was accompanied by a huge fine.

Just rack up infinite debt and declare bankruptcy.

what about prisoners with families? The families are already harmed by the loss of the prisoner's income. now they would be also be harmed by the loss of that prisoner's assets?

I think it already is.

That is possible, but it deserves its own...national debate.

@tchrist I don't think you are looking at this humanely. The real problem is that the workplace in a prison is frequently an unfair workplace. It ought to be treated more like any other kind of workplace.

@MετάEd But is that possible, if your boss is also your owner, basically?

@MετάEd I only know that the whole thing feels like a government racket, wholly unsupervised.

Expecting someone to pay for shelter and food is not unreasonable. Demanding that they make license plates for below minimum wage is.

How can you expect fair treatment from someone who has every incentive to exploit you, and the means, too?

Um, I don’t think it is reasonable to expect someone to pay for being locked up.

@Cerberus See that is what I am saying. That sort of practice should be abolished. As I said above, people should have the freedom to choose their employer or to employ themselves.

You have taken aware their liberty, against their will.

Now they have to pay for the privilege of being punished.

That is not cool.

The judge should just set a fine in addition to the prison sentence. The whole cost thing seems less relevant: the justice system should not be required to pay for itself.

@tchrist As long as their liberty was taken for good cause, I don't care if it was against their will.

@MετάEd But how is that possible in prison?

@tchrist You could make them pay for prison upgrades, like books and TV.

they will have taken away someone else's liberty against that other person's will. the other person will have been paying for that privilege

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Yes.

I don’t mind taking away their liberty.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 That would mean the rich have an easier time. Unacceptable here.

I mind having an extra-judicial fine imposed.

@Cerberus yeah. Unless you make it so that they have to earn the money in-system.

If you want to fine them, put it in the law.

@tchrist It's a natural consequence: if you can't live with other people, you will have to live behind bars. You still should not steal food.

@tchrist Oh, absolutely.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 And it would create the perverse incentive for whoever gets this money to make prisons as inhumane as posisble without those perks. Like not having net neutrality, equally perverse.

I'm not talking about an extralegal thing.

@tchrist I agree 100 %.

@MετάEd But it isn't stealing food. The law-abiding taxpayers give the food away, because it's a public good to put criminals in jail.

The prison-racket is VERY Big Business here.

And I wouldn't be against such a fine.

But the fine should not be directly related to the prison.

@tchrist Yeah, you should nationalise all prisons.

It is the most perverse thing ever, private prisons.

@Cerberus Yes, it'd be a difficult proposition. On one hand, providing incentives for good behaviour is good. On the other hand, if you tip the scales too far then you have abuse.

An abomination.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Yes, exactly.

In theory I don't care whether prisons are owned privately or publicly. In any case they should be very well regulated.

I'm not sure I understand the "too localized" close reason.

We have a lot of happily answered similar questions about terminology.

@MετάEd But what does "theory" matter? Don't you care about the perverse incentives? They will and do cause big problems.

Inherently flawed, almost.

@KitFox Really?

@Cerberus No matter how the corporate structure is (private, public, combined) there will be problems whenever the incentives are wrong.

@DavidWallace Isn't it just a SWR?

@DavidWallace Yes. What about this question makes it more localized than any other reuest?

Does the close reason come from the first voter or the last voter?

@Cerberus Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

@DavidWallace Majority. Last if tied or mod.

@MετάEd Yes, but don't you agree that the incentive to cut costs by skimping on basic services to prisoners is very important? And the incentive to exploit those you have locked up commercially is too.

It could have been five different reasons, with Too Localized the last one cast.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 But it's a GOOD SWR. One that might tempt me to vote for re-openment, if I could.

I know supermods can see the exact votes cast; maybe mods can, too.

There are supermods?

Sure.

Yes.

Is Kit a supermod, or just a super mod?

Normal.

I can't see the votes once the question is closed.

@Cerberus That is not a problem with privatization, but with privatization without adequate regulation. That's no different than letting the food industry operate with no regulation. By your argument, an unregulated food industry should be nationalized, not regulated.

She doesn’t get an auto-diamond on every possible SE account, because she is not an employee. She is elected.

you have snow falling on your blog @KitFox!

So I do.

I know Shogi can see them after they’re closed, but he is an employee.

Forgive the stupid questions. I'm having a stupid day.

There are no stupid questions. Just stupid people.

;-)

Thank you. I feel much better now.

Did you read my novel yet? That will cheer you up.

Oh, no, I didn't. I promised Matt I would read HIS novel, so yours will have to be next.

Well, his is better than mine.

And his has a funny punchline.

I shall be the judge of that; after I've read them both.

Mine is just kind of depressing.

@KitFox I don't think it matters what else "we" have happily answered, because there is a huge variation in editorial "policy" from person to person. I would also say the question shows a lot of effort, but no research effort, and that it's basically a general reference question that could be linked to the Wikipedia article that lists rhetorical terms.

(I mean, of which is better, not whether his punchline is funny).

@KitFox You just told me it would cheer me up!

@DavidWallace Well, doesn't it make you feel better when bad things happen to other people?

Oh Jinx!

@MετάEd Well, that is a valid argument, but I still think the food industry is quite different. For one thing, it is functioning fairly well at the moment. And people have more of a choice: you can not buy unhealthy food. And companies have very good reasons to guard food safety, because their reputations are worth a ton to them. Now if I read about commercialised prisons, I only hear horror stories. Perhaps they could be adequately regulated in theory, or perhaps not; but...

@MετάEd OK, fair enough.

I was typing something similar, then hesitated while I wondered how to spell schadenfreude.

The alternative is that you think I am so depressed that merely "depressing" would be a step up on the cheerfulness scale.