Hi all,

Several time, people here have cited an on-line article that discusses
the levels of caffeine in tea vs. that in coffee. It was lengthy and
careful.

I searched for the article (or a link to it) in the archives, but must
not have been looking right...

Anyhow, can anybody point me to that article? Can anybody suggest how
I might better search for it? (I could *swear* I had bookmarked it!)

Many thanks!

Nigel at Teacraft always quoted Caffeine levels. Google would be a
good bet because the information is readily available.

Jim

On Jan 31, 6:34 pm, Thitherflit > wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Several time, people here have cited an on-line article that discusses
> the levels of caffeine in tea vs. that in coffee. It was lengthy and
> careful.
>
> I searched for the article (or a link to it) in the archives, but must
> not have been looking right...
>
> Anyhow, can anybody point me to that article? Can anybody suggest how
> I might better search for it? (I could *swear* I had bookmarked it!)
>
> Many thanks!

On Feb 1, 8:09*am, Space Cowboy > wrote:
> Nigel at Teacraft always quoted Caffeine levels. *Google would be a
> good bet because the information is readily available.


Hi Jim,

That's what I was looking for! Many thanks

I just finished Tokyo Year Zero by David Peace. The book covers a
serial killer immediately after the war with Japan. I just spent some
time translating these Kanji characters å�*é*˜é–‹å§‹ä¸€å¹´ç›® printed on the cover
which means literally occupation start first year. More or less what
the title suggests. In my Japanese dictionary and on the cover é*˜ is
printed slightly differently and I couldnt get any online Kanji
dictionary to show it correctly which through me off the track for
awhile.

Jim

On Feb 2, 7:19 am, Thitherflit > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 8:09 am, Space Cowboy > wrote:
>
> > Nigel at Teacraft always quoted Caffeine levels. Google would be a
> > good bet because the information is readily available.
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> That's what I was looking for! Many thanks

On 2/2/2011 5:38 PM, Space Cowboy wrote:
> In my Japanese dictionary and on the cover é*˜ is
> printed slightly differently and I couldnt get any online Kanji
> dictionary to show it correctly which through me off the track for
> awhile.

I guess the two versions you mean are <http://tinyurl.com/6zyujn7> and
<http://tinyurl.com/4hky2m6>?

The first one is as you'd usually see it printed while the second one is
much closer to actual handwriting.

You are right. Finally I decided to use Unicode. It shows the
varients.

http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUn...codepoint=9818
is what I see printed in Chinese Dictionaries and online

http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUn...codepoint=F9B4
is what I see printed in my Japanese Dictionary and in this case on
the hardcover.

I cant find any online Kanji dictionary that recognizes the second one
just the first one.

Thanks,
Jim

On Feb 2, 4:10 pm, M M > wrote:
> On 2/2/2011 5:38 PM, Space Cowboy wrote:
>
> > In my Japanese dictionary and on the cover é*˜ is
> > printed slightly differently and I couldnt get any online Kanji
> > dictionary to show it correctly which through me off the track for
> > awhile.
>
> I guess the two versions you mean are <http://tinyurl.com/6zyujn7> and
> <http://tinyurl.com/4hky2m6>?
>
> The first one is as you'd usually see it printed while the second one is
> much closer to actual handwriting.

Interesting that both are in Unicode, with U+9818 being preferred.

At least in Japanese, the two are equivalent. It all comes down to fonts
really; U+F9B4 isn't even included in most fonts. That said,
<http://tinyurl.com/6zyujn7> is what most "normal" fonts that are meant
to look like printed text use while <http://tinyurl.com/4hky2m6> is what
"textbook" fonts or handwriting fonts display for U+9818 (same Unicode
code point for both versions).

If your online kanji dictionaries display text and not images, it's
probably the font your browser uses that determines how you see it.

NB: Unicode is notoriously poor at correctly mapping character
variations and even at differentiating between Chinese/Simplified
Chinese/Japanese/Korean versions. I don't recommend relying on that.


On 2/3/2011 1:03 AM, Space Cowboy wrote:
> You are right. Finally I decided to use Unicode. It shows the
> varients.
>
> http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUn...codepoint=9818
> is what I see printed in Chinese Dictionaries and online
>
> http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUn...codepoint=F9B4
> is what I see printed in my Japanese Dictionary and in this case on
> the hardcover.
>
> I cant find any online Kanji dictionary that recognizes the second one
> just the first one.
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
> On Feb 2, 4:10 pm, M > wrote:
>> On 2/2/2011 5:38 PM, Space Cowboy wrote:
>>
>>> In my Japanese dictionary and on the cover é*˜ is
>>> printed slightly differently and I couldnt get any online Kanji
>>> dictionary to show it correctly which through me off the track for
>>> awhile.
>>
>> I guess the two versions you mean are<http://tinyurl.com/6zyujn7> and
>> <http://tinyurl.com/4hky2m6>?
>>
>> The first one is as you'd usually see it printed while the second one is
>> much closer to actual handwriting.

When I use the codepoint F9B4 in online Kanji dictionaries I get
essentially 'character not found'. Linux and NT supply their own
character representation for each Unicode codepoint. Thats why on the
Unicode page you get a Glyph and a Browser view. Do you know of
codepoints on Unicode where the Glyph and Browser dont match (but not
in this case ;-)). Kanji is the Japanese use of traditional Chinese
characters. This is the first example where the two dont match.
Typographic representation has little or nothing to do with the
handwritten form. I am at a complete loss when it comes to cursive
representation.

Jim

On Feb 2, 6:49 pm, M M > wrote:
> Interesting that both are in Unicode, with U+9818 being preferred.
>
> At least in Japanese, the two are equivalent. It all comes down to fonts
> really; U+F9B4 isn't even included in most fonts. That said,
> <http://tinyurl.com/6zyujn7> is what most "normal" fonts that are meant
> to look like printed text use while <http://tinyurl.com/4hky2m6> is what
> "textbook" fonts or handwriting fonts display for U+9818 (same Unicode
> code point for both versions).
>
> If your online kanji dictionaries display text and not images, it's
> probably the font your browser uses that determines how you see it.
>
> NB: Unicode is notoriously poor at correctly mapping character
> variations and even at differentiating between Chinese/Simplified
> Chinese/Japanese/Korean versions. I don't recommend relying on that.
>
> On 2/3/2011 1:03 AM, Space Cowboy wrote:
>
> > You are right. Finally I decided to use Unicode. It shows the
> > varients.
>
> >http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUn...codepoint=9818
> > is what I see printed in Chinese Dictionaries and online
>
> >http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUn...codepoint=F9B4
> > is what I see printed in my Japanese Dictionary and in this case on
> > the hardcover.
>
> > I cant find any online Kanji dictionary that recognizes the second one
> > just the first one.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Jim
>
> > On Feb 2, 4:10 pm, M > wrote:
> >> On 2/2/2011 5:38 PM, Space Cowboy wrote:
>
> >>> In my Japanese dictionary and on the cover é*˜ is
> >>> printed slightly differently and I couldnt get any online Kanji
> >>> dictionary to show it correctly which through me off the track for
> >>> awhile.
>
> >> I guess the two versions you mean are<http://tinyurl.com/6zyujn7> and
> >> <http://tinyurl.com/4hky2m6>?
>
> >> The first one is as you'd usually see it printed while the second one is
> >> much closer to actual handwriting.

Not really sure what to tell you except that there are lots of different
fonts in Chinese/Japanese just like there are in English/Roman scripts.
And yes, depending on the font _you_ use (the "browser view" you
mention), characters will look slighty or significantly different than
the reference representation in the Unicode standard.

Today's kanji are not always the same as traditional Chinese characters
since the Japanese have simplified them independently of the Chinese.
Unfortunately Unicode sometimes maps a simplified Japanese and/or
simplified Chinese and/or traditional Chinese character to the same
codepoint even if they look really different. Again, in these cases,
what they look like for you will depend on the font you use (Chinese or
Japanese, different Japanese fonts etc.).

On 2/3/2011 3:52 AM, Space Cowboy wrote:
> When I use the codepoint F9B4 in online Kanji dictionaries I get
> essentially 'character not found'. Linux and NT supply their own
> character representation for each Unicode codepoint. Thats why on the
> Unicode page you get a Glyph and a Browser view. Do you know of
> codepoints on Unicode where the Glyph and Browser dont match (but not
> in this case ;-)). Kanji is the Japanese use of traditional Chinese
> characters. This is the first example where the two dont match.
> Typographic representation has little or nothing to do with the
> handwritten form. I am at a complete loss when it comes to cursive
> representation.
>
> Jim
>
> On Feb 2, 6:49 pm, M > wrote:
>> Interesting that both are in Unicode, with U+9818 being preferred.
>>
>> At least in Japanese, the two are equivalent. It all comes down to fonts
>> really; U+F9B4 isn't even included in most fonts. That said,
>> <http://tinyurl.com/6zyujn7> is what most "normal" fonts that are meant
>> to look like printed text use while<http://tinyurl.com/4hky2m6> is what
>> "textbook" fonts or handwriting fonts display for U+9818 (same Unicode
>> code point for both versions).
>>
>> If your online kanji dictionaries display text and not images, it's
>> probably the font your browser uses that determines how you see it.
>>
>> NB: Unicode is notoriously poor at correctly mapping character
>> variations and even at differentiating between Chinese/Simplified
>> Chinese/Japanese/Korean versions. I don't recommend relying on that.
>>
>> On 2/3/2011 1:03 AM, Space Cowboy wrote:
>>
>>> You are right. Finally I decided to use Unicode. It shows the
>>> varients.
>>
>>> http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUn...codepoint=9818
>>> is what I see printed in Chinese Dictionaries and online
>>
>>> http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUn...codepoint=F9B4
>>> is what I see printed in my Japanese Dictionary and in this case on
>>> the hardcover.
>>
>>> I cant find any online Kanji dictionary that recognizes the second one
>>> just the first one.
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jim
>>
>>> On Feb 2, 4:10 pm, M > wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/2011 5:38 PM, Space Cowboy wrote:
>>
>>>>> In my Japanese dictionary and on the cover é*˜ is
>>>>> printed slightly differently and I couldnt get any online Kanji
>>>>> dictionary to show it correctly which through me off the track for
>>>>> awhile.
>>
>>>> I guess the two versions you mean are<http://tinyurl.com/6zyujn7> and
>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/4hky2m6>?
>>
>>>> The first one is as you'd usually see it printed while the second one is
>>>> much closer to actual handwriting.

We’re not allowed to socialize with males or have anything to do with them. I did have a lot of male friends, but my father didn’t know about them.
Until one day at school

Ill take your word there can be a difference between Kanji and Chinese
characters which is new to me. My 1960 Japanese English dictionary
looks like it is using the F9B4 codepoint (blurry). My 1960 Chinese
Japanese dictionary definitely uses the F9B4 codepoint.

Jim

On Feb 2, 8:07 pm, M M > wrote:
....
> Today's kanji are not always the same as traditional Chinese characters
> since the Japanese have simplified them independently of the Chinese.
....