Search results for 'tag:Difference between tag:Log in' matching tags 'Difference between' and 'Log in'

Re: Correct use of "... of yours"

Anonymous — Fri, 16 May 2008 15:39:28 GMT

"Yours" means "belonging to you" and thus both of the examples you quote is correct, although the latter "this watch of yours" is more colloquial and would be regarded by some as poor English, even though it is widely used. The word may also be used in letter as in "Yours faithfully". It should never be written "your's" !! Also look our for the difference between "your" and "you're" - incorrect use of these words is a very common event in English. Remember "your" means "belonging to you" whereas "you're" means "you are".

[Info on blog removed. You may register and list your blog in your profile]

Re: appear, seem

Chariot — Thu, 17 May 2007 12:22:16 GMT

The previous message is mine. I forgot to log in. I'd like to know if there is any difference between the two words when they carry the meaning of "seem". Thanks.

Log on to a site / Log in on a site? What's a difference?

Bamtori — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:28:36 GMT

Teachers, is there any difference between these two expressions?:

Log on to a site / Log in on a site

Don't they mean the same?

Re: Humility

Jhumjhum — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:40:38 GMT

Kilimanjaro wrote:
Grammar Geek wrote:

Sometimes I make mistakes on this forum. Usually, it is because I type quickly but not accurately, and this is entirely my fault. Sometimes, it's because I am thinking with only my "American English" brain and I say something it wrong or not used a certain way because it's not how *I* would use it. (I am more embarrassed about being a typical "ugly American" than I am about being a poor typist.) And sometimes I'm just wrong about something that I thought I was right about, and I learn something too. When any of these situations occur, I hope I am gracious in my acknowledgement of my mistake and say I'm sorry for any confusion.

But some people seem incapable of saying "Oh, I was wrong about that." Or they continue to try to make themselves look good, coming up with far-fetched reasons that could make them right, intead of simply saying "Whoops. My bad." (T'hat's a very slangy way of saying "I made a mistake.")

I am wondering if this is a cultural thing. Do you think some cultures are much better at apologies, admitting mistakes, and so on, than other cultures are? Do you think there's a difference between how men and women react when confronted with mistakes?

If you think so, what should I do with my crappy English. I make thousands of mistakes....am I supposed to log out and never log in again?.

I do feel same like kilimanjaro.Unfortunately I had to study in native schools because my father had a transferable job and he could not accomodate me in a residential convent school due to some reason .In my childhood I was not so serious about studies like all other children . I started learning English while teaching my son and 'am still learning .I think it is never late for learning anything.I have started using computer resently learning from my son so you may guess that my knowledge of computer is also very poor as well as my typing.But its a pity that sometimes when I say humbly that I am not good enough in English, people whose English is worse than me start humiliating.It happens not only in case of English but also in all aspects of knowledge (even cooking).There are some people who think themselves perfect and mock at others without correcting their faults.

Re: Humility

Kilimanjaro — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:13:31 GMT

Grammar Geek wrote:

Sometimes I make mistakes on this forum. Usually, it is because I type quickly but not accurately, and this is entirely my fault. Sometimes, it's because I am thinking with only my "American English" brain and I say something it wrong or not used a certain way because it's not how *I* would use it. (I am more embarrassed about being a typical "ugly American" than I am about being a poor typist.) And sometimes I'm just wrong about something that I thought I was right about, and I learn something too. When any of these situations occur, I hope I am gracious in my acknowledgement of my mistake and say I'm sorry for any confusion.

But some people seem incapable of saying "Oh, I was wrong about that." Or they continue to try to make themselves look good, coming up with far-fetched reasons that could make them right, intead of simply saying "Whoops. My bad." (T'hat's a very slangy way of saying "I made a mistake.")

I am wondering if this is a cultural thing. Do you think some cultures are much better at apologies, admitting mistakes, and so on, than other cultures are? Do you think there's a difference between how men and women react when confronted with mistakes?

If you think so, what should I do with my crappy English. I make thousands of mistakes....am I supposed to log out and never log in again?.

Re: I'd like to drink coffee.

Mister Micawber — Mon, 15 May 2006 05:37:57 GMT

the difference between... next year and nex' chear, or last year and las' chear

I'm not sure that this medium is subtle enough to deal with such differences, or differences of opinion. Glide absorption and other reductions and liaisons are analog in variation among individuals and regions, and difficult to transcribe, even with a full set of IPA characters. For instance, Dave's 'nex chear' does not sound, when I read it, too far off from what I would call-- and teach as-- a natural pronunciation. If I had to put the same phrase down here, I would write /neks tchi:r/ as my approximation; but I doubt all would accept that either.

Blogging's Future in China

Mkgenie — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:27:00 GMT

http://mkgenie.yculblog.com/

On November 21, the winners of the Deutsche Welle International Weblog Awards (also known as the BOBs or Best of the Blogs) were unveiled, with both jury and audience awards for Best Podcasting Site going to the Chinese site Antiwave by Pingke and Flyfig.

Massage Cream by Wang Xiaofeng, a journalist from the magazine Sanlian Life Weekly, was chosen by the jury as Best Journalistic Blog in Chinese, while Feidao Cepan Qianfan Guo by Xiao Feidao scooped the audience prize.

The jury's Best Weblog went to A Little Respect, I'm Your Mother by Argentinean journalist HernÃ¡n Casciari, while the audience's was given to the Brazilian site Tupiniquim.

The annual awards, run by German website DW-World.de, are in their second year and involved 2,500 bloggers and podcasters, with about 100,000 internet users casting their votes. Last year's jury-selected Best Weblog was also a Chinese site called The Dog Newspaper.

The same day the latest results were announced, Fang Xingdong, president of China's first blog site Bokee.com, told China.org.cn he believed that, after an initial explosion in popularity in recent years, blogging in China had an even brighter future.

Fang first translated "blog" into Chinese as boke based on its pronunciation, but this also means "knowledgeable man." Other terms that have been used in Chinese include Tribe, Wangzhi (literally "web log") or simply the English "Blog."

In July 2002, Fang found that articles he had written critical of Microsoft had been removed from several websites, including the portal Sina.com, which he said had been due to commercial pressure.

This experience had left him disillusioned with the Internet, but he said a friend then introduced him to blogging, which at that time wasn't popular anywhere. His interest was rekindled and he became convinced that blogs would revolutionize cyberspace.

He soon established his still-dominant blog site, initially called Blogchina.com but renamed recently, and wrote a long Declaration of Chinese Bloggers to advocate the medium. Yet even by late 2004 Chen Tong, vice president of Sina.com, told a blog seminar he still couldn't tell the difference between blogs and BBS (bulletin board systems).

Fang said thousands of Internet users are creating their own spaces every day, and Chinese blogs may number 10 million by the end of this year. "We can think of blogs as Personal Websites version 2.0. Every personal website before was a separate place, but blogs gather people together by using links, quotes, comments and RSS."

In September, Bokee.com received US million from three American venture capitalists, Hong Kong-based Softbank Investment International and a mainland investor, while Amazon.com subsidiary Alexa currently ranks it 102 in the world in terms of traffic.

Sina.com, Sohu.com and Bokee.com each launched their own blog competitions in September, with Sina.com even convincing movie, music, media and literary celebrities to start blogs in order to promote it -- something that has proved extremely popular.

Despite large numbers of bloggers in China, Fang said "only 2 out of 5 users update their blogs regularly" and welcomed ways to encourage more activity.

Wang Yi, from BBS site Chinabbs, was quoted in Sanlian Life Weekly's November 14 issue as saying no one really knows how many bloggers there are in China: "It's really hard to find out because there are too many small hosts."

The magazine described a debate at the Chinese Weblog Convention in Shanghai, which closed on November 5, over how to maintain or improve the quality of blogging. While some thought blogging was about people freely expressing themselves in their own space, others said the emphasis should be on professionals writing on serious subjects.

Fang said blogs could improve people's lives through better information sharing, though most bloggers in China only write about their personal feelings and life.

But this could change: a 50-year-old blogger broke the news of a fatal attack on a woman on Beijing's Wangfujing Road on November 7 last year and many papers including Beijing Youth Daily followed his reports for their coverage, with even CNN using it.

Chen Tong expressed doubts that blogs would become a significant media player in China. "Blogs are just a place for writing lovers to write, I can't imagine a day when people don't look for information from Xinhua News Agency or other providers," he told Qian Jiang Evening News on November 15.

Fang maintained that blogs would surpass traditional websites this year, and that their varying adaptations -- including podcasting and mobile blogs -- would guarantee their success.

He said the only difference between Chinese and overseas blogs at the moment was in numbers, as 60 percent of young Americans and 90 percent of young South Koreans write blogs, compared to less than 10 percent of young Chinese.

Fang said his ultimate goal was for every Chinese person to write a blog and express themselves online -- as well as to make Bokee.com profitable by the end of this year and listed on NASDAQ by the end of 2006.

Re: what's the difference between sign in and up?

rishonly — Sat, 31 Dec 2005 06:46:12 GMT

Hello Pdk001,

My interpretation: If you already have an account -- for instance, an email account --set up for you, you 'sign in' or 'sign on' using that existing account.On the other hand, if you don't have an account, you 'sign up' by creating a new account.

In general, we can say,

"Sign in"/"Sign on" --> Log in

"Sign up" --> Register

"Sign out: --> Log out.

Re: There are said to be

Rho — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:51:44 GMT

H'mm...
Interesting. So you natives feel some clear difference between 'there are said to be' and 'it is said to be' (with regard to the credibility of given information, so to speak). Right?

I didn't pay any attention to this. Yes, Taka has pointed out this. I have to think it over. (But I still think that it won't determine the reading, ultimately, IMHO.)

....................................................................................
I'm about to join the insects myself, now; and it may well look less strange when I next log in!
....................................................................................
ãï¼ï¼
I believe that entomologists are such happy people who cannot help but consider themselves as more akin creature to insects ... spider or something. Good for you.

Please revise or comment on my writing (due on 11/9)..

chw210 — Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:21:28 GMT

Hi everyone,
I need your advice or comment on revising the term paper. Thanks for your kind help.

Review of âEFL Academic Reading and Modern Technology: How Can We Turn Our Students into Independent Critical Readers?â
This is a mixed research which starts with the experiment and descriptive research comes after. This research attempts to prove that a computer-assisted language learning benefits studentsâ critical reading by reading authentic material extensively and do research independently. This research divided the 58 participants into two experiments and two control groups. They were college students with advanced language proficiency in Bar-Ilan University. Data was collected by means of questionnaire, studentsâ reports and teacherâs log.
There are some strengths I find in this research. First, the authors had made an important issue in this research-- the significance of the transition from reading to authentic reading for EFL learners. It is assumed that online learning environment provides chances for learners to think independently through reading authentic materials. Second, many relevant variables had been considered. The variable, the subjectsâ language proficiency, had been controlled carefully to avoid affecting the results. Subjects were randomly divided based on the availability of the computer classroom and they were at the advanced levels. Other variables, such as the same amount of instruction and exercise, were exactly the same in both control and experiment groups.
On the other hand, I find there are many issues unanswered or the authors need to provide more details. The conclusion can not be completely supported in lack of evidence.
First, the most serious problem in this research is that the authors provided neither samples nor evidence of how data was represented. The data was collected through questionnaire, teacherâs logs, and studentsâ progress reports. On page 8, however, the following statement I cited from the paragraph on page 8. to state without any evidence to backup.
âThe progress reports and teachersâ log in the experimental classes as well as the teacherâsâ log in the conventional classes showed that the relation between the studentsâ self-perception of reading aptitude and progress in the course was different at the two levels of proficiency, regardless of the course format. At the Advanced One level of proficiency, the progress reports and the teacherâs log indicated noticeable improvement: as the course progresses, the studentsâ behavior showed increasing independence. At the Advanced Two level of proficiency, on the other hand, students were able to complete most of the assignment independently very early in the course.â
Itâs doubtful not to include the statistical data of how the progress reports have changed. Besides, the two measures, the progress report and teacherâs log, are not reliable to represent the subjectsâ self-conception of reading aptitude while it can only stand for the progress in the course.
Besides, the authors said in the section of qualitative data on page 7, â in the conventional classes, the teacherâs log revealed the following observationsâ¦.The teacherâs log showed gradual increase in the amount of readingâ¦â Since no evidence was indicated to support the above statement, I doubted the effectiveness of the teacherâs log.
Second, the internal validity is highly questionable if the teacher, a participant of the study, knows the purpose of the experiment. Although all the subjects were taught by the same teachers, the result may be questionable if the teacher have a bias toward the control groupâthe conventional class. In other words, the attitude of a teacherâwhat s/he believes or not believe in CALL (Computerized-assisted Language Learning)âjudge the result of the experiment.
Third, time is another variable ignored by the researchers. We have no clue of the period of time the experiment has lasted but what the authors said on page 9 showed that the subjects are interested in itââ..The element of novelty undoubtedly played a significant role â¦â While students are bored with the conventional classroom, many of them tend to be attracted by this new online learning. The result will be quite different if the experiment time lasts for two or three years. Therefore, this time factor may violate the internal validity and the authors did not mention about it, either.
Fourth, the authors need to specify the website they use in their experiment and how the texts are grouped into six topics. Itâs hard to imagine how the website can be used.
Fifth, there is a gap between independent reading and critical reading. The authors define critical literacy as âthe ability to clarify purpose, make use of relevant background knowledge, focus on major content, critically evaluate content, draw and test inferences and monitor comprehensionâ and âreflective thinking and metacognition.â However, the task done by the subjects is only partially based on it. They are asked to search on Internet, which I think is an act of reading individually not independently. The three guided questionsââWhich of the following sites provide conventional news and which deals with alternative news?â âWhat are the characteristic features of the classifications?â âWho stands behind these sources and whatâs their agenda?ââ cannot help them evaluate the content critically and think reflectively but only learn to infer it. Moreover, instead of being independent readers, students still rely on the guide of the teachersâ questions.
Sixth, the major difference between the two experimental groups and between the control groups is vague. In the description of the participants, the authors only mentioned that two groups are in Advanced One level and the other two were in Advanced two level. What confused me here isâwhat is the real difference between Advanced Level One and Two? Itâs not until I read the finding do I find the difference in the following sentenceââ ..at the lower level of proficiency (Advanced One) studentsâ¦At the higher level of proficiency (Advanced Two)..â However, it was not clearly addresses in the beginning of the study.
Finally, the table 3 is problematic in two waysâit mixed up both experimental and control groups and the P value is too high to be significant. Without control group, we can not see how the variablesâemphasis on close reading skills and development of critical reading skillsâhave influenced on the subjects.
To sum up, more evidence needs to be provided to support the experiment, such as the form of the questionnaire and the teacherâ log, and the statistical data of studentsâ progress reports. Besides, subjectsâ self-evaluation questionnaire to see their own achievement on critical reading skills is not reliable.