[sword-devel] Web Interface
sword-devel@crosswire.org
sword-devel@crosswire.org
Tue, 25 Feb 2003 03:41:29 EST
--part1_ad.2b2d9e5b.2b8c8639_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 2/24/2003 11:58:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
chrislit@crosswire.org writes:
> More or less correct, but it's not exactly clear whether they're counting,
> for example, the 1/3 of Malaysians who can read Chinese in both their
> Chinese and Bahasa Malaysia statistics (which they should, and it looks
> like they may). And even so, it's not clear what they consider to be a
> "native speaker" in terms of proficiency level.
>
> --Chris
>
This is "estimation". And their estimation method have been publish in their
web site. You are welcome to find better research result. It is usually not
worthy to come out a very clear number anyway since those number obsolete
every 2-3 monthes.
If you think you can do a better job than these marketing professional, you
are welcome to write your own page. I simply trust their number after I look
at their source.
I do believe the estimation may have error in it. It is estimation anyway.
But how much and does those error matter. For example, if you look at
<A HREF="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/my.html">http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/my.html</A>
"Ethnic groups:
Malay and other indigenous 58%, Chinese 24%, Indian 8%, others 10% (2000)
Languages:Bahasa Melayu (official), English, Chinese dialects
(Cantonese,Mandarin, Hokkien, Hakka, Hainan, Foochow), Tamil, Telugu,
Malayalam, Panjabi,Thai; note - in addition, in East Malaysia several
indigenous languages arespoken, the largest of which are Iban and Kadazan "
It does not say how many % of the Malaysian speak Chinese. But it does said
24% of the population is Chinese. While 24% is not equal to 33% (1/3), people
may argue that there are more % of Chinese online than other Ethnic group in
Malaysia (which is probably true). But so what, if it is % is 24% instead of
33.33%? It will be 530K less than what it reported there.
It looks like the "<A HREF="http://www.census.gov/apsd/wepeople/we-3.pdf">the Census Bureau's report</A> " <A HREF="http://www.census.gov/apsd/wepeople/we-3.pdf">
http://www.census.gov/apsd/wepeople/we-3.pdf</A> they quote neither define the "
proficiency level." you ask for. Maybe you should suggest the US Department
of Commerce Bureau of the Census to do a better job to fulfill your
expectation.
--part1_ad.2b2d9e5b.2b8c8639_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 2/24/2003 11:58:19 PM Pacific Stand=
ard Time, chrislit@crosswire.org writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">More or less correct, but it's=20=
not exactly clear whether they're counting, <BR>
for example, the 1/3 of Malaysians who can read Chinese in both their <BR>
Chinese and Bahasa Malaysia statistics (which they should, and it looks <BR>
like they may). And even so, it's not clear what they consider to be a=
<BR>
"native speaker" in terms of proficiency level.<BR>
<BR>
--Chris<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
This is "estimation". And their estimation method have been publish in their=
web site. You are welcome to find better research result. It is usually not=
worthy to come out a very clear number anyway since those number obsolete e=
very 2-3 monthes. <BR>
<BR>
If you think you can do a better job than these marketing professional, you=20=
are welcome to write your own page. I simply trust their number after I look=
at their source. <BR>
<BR>
I do believe the estimation may have error in it. It is estimation anyway. B=
ut how much and does those error matter. For example, if you look at<BR>
<A HREF=3D"http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/my.html">http:/=
/www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/my.html</A><BR>
<BR>
"Ethnic groups:<BR>
Malay and other indigenous 58%, Chinese 24%, Indian 8%, others 10% (2000) =20=
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D2=
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">Languages:Bahasa Melayu (off=
icial), English, Chinese dialects (Cantonese,Mandarin, Hokkien, Hakka, Haina=
n, Foochow), Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Panjabi,Thai; note - in addition, in=20=
East Malaysia several indigenous languages arespoken, the largest of which a=
re Iban and Kadazan "<BR>
<BR>
It does not say how many % of the Malaysian speak Chinese. But it does said=20=
24% of the population is Chinese. While 24% is not equal to 33% (1/3), peopl=
e may argue that there are more % of Chinese online than other Ethnic group=20=
in Malaysia (which is probably true). But so what, if it is % is 24% instead=
of 33.33%? It will be 530K less than what it reported there.<BR>
<BR>
It looks like the "<A HREF=3D"http://www.census.gov/apsd/wepeople/we-3.pdf">=
the Census Bureau's report</A> " <A HREF=3D"http://www.census.gov/apsd/wepeo=
ple/we-3.pdf">http://www.census.gov/apsd/wepeople/we-3.pdf</A> they quote ne=
ither define the "</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR:=
#ffffff" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">proficienc=
y level." you ask for. Maybe you should suggest the US Department of Commerc=
e Bureau of the Census to do a better job to fulfill your expectation.<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_ad.2b2d9e5b.2b8c8639_boundary--