What worries me is that every time I see "gutsy gibbon", I read "gusty gibbon". If a lot of other people have that affliction they're going to say "I bet it blows" and we'll never see the year of Linux on the Desktop.
That and the vague possibility that release code wrapping yields "Affable Axolotl".
I thought that originally the kilogram was defined in terms of water, the mass of 10 square cm of water.
This is almost true, although it's 1000 cubic cm or 1 litre rather than 10 square cms. Mathematics, however, has evolved.
10 cubic cm can be described as the volume of a cube with ten cm per side, or 10 x 10 x 10 = 1000 cm3. At least that's how it was. These days, multiplication has mutated slightly, so 10 x 10 is now 99.9999994482 +/- 0.0000000002. This means that the mass of a litre of water has indeed changed slightly, while the standard kilogram remains correct. In fact, the mass of a litre of water is now subtly different depending on the shape of its container, an effect which is more evident with larger containers. A 50 litre cube of water without handles is indeed heavier than a 50 litre flexible bag with a nice long handle attached to a harness.
While this doesn't currently pose any major problems, I for one pity the engineers when cartesian geometry evolves opposable thumbs.
As for Dapper being more stable than the releases since, that's by design. The next extra-stable release (version 8.4, code name "Hardy Heron") will come out next April.
I think you responded in too much detail. The correct answer is "RTFM"
And you are the primary school kid who takes the opposite opinion from what the adults and the other kids say, because you like to be alone?
No, I'm the kid who says "screw cars" and goes and plays "Monkey" with some other kids.
All of the arguments you present are interesting, but they are all based on theories and models or are based on observations based on theories and models and observed using aparatus that operate from within our little piece of the universe with our rules that are again based on existing models.
The existence of atoms is not certain. Granted, we can build equipment that takes measurements which seem to confirm that they do exist, but that is all based on extrapolating observations from our experience.
I'm not saying that all of that is wrong, but I don't accept that it's certainty. Our understanding of the universe is based on models and models are representations of aspects of nature in which we have interest. A model SR-71 some hobbiest has put together with glue and covered in stickers is not a real SR-71. The thing I find funny about so many "experts" is that they will argue that a model is fact and ridicule anyone who questions it.
I prefer to keep an open mind, and sometimes wonder whether the rules of nature bend throughout the universe. What if the laws vary so subtly that probes sent into deep space couldn't possibly detect they changes for another thousand years, but our furthest observations are so wildly distorted by thier remoteness that by the time a probe could get there, it would resemble a banana and taste like chicken?
There's nothing wrong with questioning the status quo, and in fact that is how major scientific breakthroughs happen. The rest is technological and/or academic.
He argues some stuff about the red shift coming from spacetime curvature
BTW, this the bit that I don't quite buy. I don't believe in spacetime. Yeah, he has a long way to go, but it's still any interesting and aesthetically pleasing model IMO.
Nukes still win that on that score. Serious burns combined with your digestive system rotting inside your body would be worse than the burns suffered from a fuel air bomb.
In my experience, when you catch fire, it actually doesn't hurt all that much. It has to do with the shock I think, but it's only afterwards that the real pain happens. If someone is close enough to be covered with or inhale fuel, I doubt very much whether they'd would survive the shockwave long enough to experience the pain of burning, especially when you consider it looks like this thing is designed to maximise the shock wave.
I'm not defending it by the way. All these weapons are reminders that a lot of humanity are very primitive and/or stupid. I'm just pointing out that nukes have all the same features as these with the added filth later.
But seriously, I agree entirely. I came across this a while back, and it sits pretty well with me. Of course most people will say it's ridiculous and laugh it off because <insert derision but provide no sensible argument>.
Either that or they will respond by arguing that it can't work because the combination of a few observations and <insert theory (note: *theory*)> doesn't allow it.
Most folks discussing these things are like primary school kids discussing cars. They don't actually know what they are talking about, but they like to imagine they do and tend to agree on a favourite. Any kid who disagrees is stupid.
Some fairly basic functionality only available via a text interface: ed is a complete bitch to use, so my ability to use it for really basic layout strokes my ego. Winner: my predetermined favourite!
Some functionality that I never use and don't understand: Who cares? Winner: Whatever he said.
Something my predetermined favourite sucks at: Ummm, well yknow, stuff and such. Winner: It really depends on your personal tastes.
Conclusion:
1. Use my personal favourite obscure UNIX utility. That means you, 53 year old mother of seven who learned to use a computer two years ago.
2. Noone needs to see what they are doing as they do it. Quit whining.
3. Then you can use a technical propeller head environment for your low skilled admin job!
4. Oh and I nearly forgot. STFU,RTFM&quit being a PITA!!!
----
Funnily enough, my biasometer gave an identical reading for your post, my post and TFA!
The funniest part of your comment is that it's moderated Insightful. Australia has the same kind of republicans as New Zealand, I don't think they actually have a political party, if they do they don't register, and the Democrats are a minor party that only gets seats in the Upper House. Well done. *golf clap*
I just read the thing on smoking pot and I'm quite convinced the debunking is just as sciency as the study it seeks to debunk.
There's a classic circular argument in there regarding smoking tobacco. I read some research (don't remember where) that nicotine reduces the symptoms of schizophrenia, which in part explains why they smoke so much. There is actually work going on to develop tobacco based drugs for this reason.
Not saying the debunking is completely crap, in fact I agree with the main chicken and egg thrust of it, but it is about as solid as the story it's critisising, so it's a bit hypocritical and doesn't really offer anything of significant benefit to the debate. Thanks anyway.
In answer to the inevitable "you're being a hypocrite too" comments, I'm posting on/., not blogging and attempting to pass myself off as an expert.
Wow. Looks as crazy as some of the shit in the bible.
Apologies to christians for that, but I'm trying to make a point here. I don't understand what your extract means, just as I don't understand lots of religious or other texts that depend on background information. I assume that you are calling it crap because you don't understand it. Prosecuting someone because they have written material for internal use which you don't understand is dangerous and just a bit stupid.
While Belgium's treatment of Opus Dei and other 'cults' may be hard, I don't see how this is relevent to Scientology. This action doesn't look to be about the religion. It seems to be about the church itself. If I started a buddhist sect that killed people, conducted violent "mediation" sessions, threatened anyone who left, broke up families and drained peoples bank accounts and did all for profit, I would expect to be prosecuted in any country where the rule of law is respected. And the prosecution wouldn't be a persecution of religion, buddhism would still be perfectly acceptable but the church would be prosecuted.
Bringing freedom of religion into this discussion is bullshit, because the CoS is not the religion, it is the church. If the CoS renounced persecution and violence and not required payment for instruction, they wouldn't be charged with being a criminal organisation.
You may not be able to separate church and state, but at least try to separate church and religion.
The principal is that by taking lots of pictures of the same thing, you can correct the error. The larger the sample you take, the closer you get to the true image. For error to be amplified you would almost need the same random dust particle arrangement from the telescope to the edge of the atmosphere in a significant sample of the images, which is very unlikely.
Of course you probably understand that.
what happens when it produces an image that looks clear, but isn't accurate.
In answer to your actual question, there are two possibilities. One is that life goes on as normal, the other is that it doesn't. Given the gravity of the consequences of even a small error in these images, we must be completely sure of their accuracy.
I therefore nominate you to travel to the cat's eye nebula to check. In return I promise to do everything in my power to ensure that the language is still alive on your return, so that someone can understand your report.
It's obviously off topic, but it's really funny. I mean no one would seriously be stupid enough to support an international war criminal so passionately, would they?
Slashdot Mirror
./ needs a +1 Troll moderation option.
What worries me is that every time I see "gutsy gibbon", I read "gusty gibbon". If a lot of other people have that affliction they're going to say "I bet it blows" and we'll never see the year of Linux on the Desktop.
That and the vague possibility that release code wrapping yields "Affable Axolotl".
This is almost true, although it's 1000 cubic cm or 1 litre rather than 10 square cms. Mathematics, however, has evolved.
10 cubic cm can be described as the volume of a cube with ten cm per side, or 10 x 10 x 10 = 1000 cm3. At least that's how it was. These days, multiplication has mutated slightly, so 10 x 10 is now 99.9999994482 +/- 0.0000000002. This means that the mass of a litre of water has indeed changed slightly, while the standard kilogram remains correct. In fact, the mass of a litre of water is now subtly different depending on the shape of its container, an effect which is more evident with larger containers. A 50 litre cube of water without handles is indeed heavier than a 50 litre flexible bag with a nice long handle attached to a harness.
While this doesn't currently pose any major problems, I for one pity the engineers when cartesian geometry evolves opposable thumbs.
I think you responded in too much detail. The correct answer is "RTFM"
No, I'm the kid who says "screw cars" and goes and plays "Monkey" with some other kids.
All of the arguments you present are interesting, but they are all based on theories and models or are based on observations based on theories and models and observed using aparatus that operate from within our little piece of the universe with our rules that are again based on existing models.
The existence of atoms is not certain. Granted, we can build equipment that takes measurements which seem to confirm that they do exist, but that is all based on extrapolating observations from our experience.
I'm not saying that all of that is wrong, but I don't accept that it's certainty. Our understanding of the universe is based on models and models are representations of aspects of nature in which we have interest. A model SR-71 some hobbiest has put together with glue and covered in stickers is not a real SR-71. The thing I find funny about so many "experts" is that they will argue that a model is fact and ridicule anyone who questions it.
I prefer to keep an open mind, and sometimes wonder whether the rules of nature bend throughout the universe. What if the laws vary so subtly that probes sent into deep space couldn't possibly detect they changes for another thousand years, but our furthest observations are so wildly distorted by thier remoteness that by the time a probe could get there, it would resemble a banana and taste like chicken?
There's nothing wrong with questioning the status quo, and in fact that is how major scientific breakthroughs happen. The rest is technological and/or academic.
BTW, this the bit that I don't quite buy. I don't believe in spacetime. Yeah, he has a long way to go, but it's still any interesting and aesthetically pleasing model IMO.
Hair a few times, but thankfully flesh only once.
Pffft. RTFA? I just hovered my mouse over the link to figure it out. RTFA indeed.
Nukes still win that on that score. Serious burns combined with your digestive system rotting inside your body would be worse than the burns suffered from a fuel air bomb.
In my experience, when you catch fire, it actually doesn't hurt all that much. It has to do with the shock I think, but it's only afterwards that the real pain happens. If someone is close enough to be covered with or inhale fuel, I doubt very much whether they'd would survive the shockwave long enough to experience the pain of burning, especially when you consider it looks like this thing is designed to maximise the shock wave.
I'm not defending it by the way. All these weapons are reminders that a lot of humanity are very primitive and/or stupid. I'm just pointing out that nukes have all the same features as these with the added filth later.
Nice troll. ;-)
But seriously, I agree entirely. I came across this a while back, and it sits pretty well with me. Of course most people will say it's ridiculous and laugh it off because <insert derision but provide no sensible argument>.
Either that or they will respond by arguing that it can't work because the combination of a few observations and <insert theory (note: *theory*)> doesn't allow it.
Most folks discussing these things are like primary school kids discussing cars. They don't actually know what they are talking about, but they like to imagine they do and tend to agree on a favourite. Any kid who disagrees is stupid.
There, fixed that for ya.
Completely serious
Some fairly basic functionality only available via a text interface: ed is a complete bitch to use, so my ability to use it for really basic layout strokes my ego. Winner: my predetermined favourite!
Some functionality that I never use and don't understand: Who cares? Winner: Whatever he said.
Something my predetermined favourite sucks at: Ummm, well yknow, stuff and such. Winner: It really depends on your personal tastes.
Conclusion:
1. Use my personal favourite obscure UNIX utility. That means you, 53 year old mother of seven who learned to use a computer two years ago.
2. Noone needs to see what they are doing as they do it. Quit whining.
3. Then you can use a technical propeller head environment for your low skilled admin job!
4. Oh and I nearly forgot. STFU,RTFM&quit being a PITA!!!
----
Funnily enough, my biasometer gave an identical reading for your post, my post and TFA!
kdawson, for posting this absolute shit as an IT story with nothing more than a link to a wikipedia article in the summary!
Congratulations!
Hey, kdawson, while you're reading this, can I just grease you up about a story I want to post about how Steam will replace electricity to power the electric kettles of the future? Thanks buddy!
Isn't Canada that US state just north of Ohio?
I thought Canadians were Americans, only more sensible and less annoying than their southern counterparts.
The funniest part of your comment is that it's moderated Insightful. Australia has the same kind of republicans as New Zealand, I don't think they actually have a political party, if they do they don't register, and the Democrats are a minor party that only gets seats in the Upper House. Well done. *golf clap*
I thought he meant that asteriods buzz around planets like flies.
I just read the thing on smoking pot and I'm quite convinced the debunking is just as sciency as the study it seeks to debunk.
There's a classic circular argument in there regarding smoking tobacco. I read some research (don't remember where) that nicotine reduces the symptoms of schizophrenia, which in part explains why they smoke so much. There is actually work going on to develop tobacco based drugs for this reason.
Not saying the debunking is completely crap, in fact I agree with the main chicken and egg thrust of it, but it is about as solid as the story it's critisising, so it's a bit hypocritical and doesn't really offer anything of significant benefit to the debate. Thanks anyway.
In answer to the inevitable "you're being a hypocrite too" comments, I'm posting on /., not blogging and attempting to pass myself off as an expert.
Pffffft. You're a crackpot. The Nazca Lines wasn't a commercial spaceport, it was run by a not for profit collective.
Maybe, maybe not, but Cuba and Syria would like to see the decline of Western civilisation, so they do have an interest in OOXML becoming a standard.
Wow. Looks as crazy as some of the shit in the bible.
Apologies to christians for that, but I'm trying to make a point here. I don't understand what your extract means, just as I don't understand lots of religious or other texts that depend on background information. I assume that you are calling it crap because you don't understand it. Prosecuting someone because they have written material for internal use which you don't understand is dangerous and just a bit stupid.
While Belgium's treatment of Opus Dei and other 'cults' may be hard, I don't see how this is relevent to Scientology. This action doesn't look to be about the religion. It seems to be about the church itself. If I started a buddhist sect that killed people, conducted violent "mediation" sessions, threatened anyone who left, broke up families and drained peoples bank accounts and did all for profit, I would expect to be prosecuted in any country where the rule of law is respected. And the prosecution wouldn't be a persecution of religion, buddhism would still be perfectly acceptable but the church would be prosecuted.
Bringing freedom of religion into this discussion is bullshit, because the CoS is not the religion, it is the church. If the CoS renounced persecution and violence and not required payment for instruction, they wouldn't be charged with being a criminal organisation.
You may not be able to separate church and state, but at least try to separate church and religion.
The principal is that by taking lots of pictures of the same thing, you can correct the error. The larger the sample you take, the closer you get to the true image. For error to be amplified you would almost need the same random dust particle arrangement from the telescope to the edge of the atmosphere in a significant sample of the images, which is very unlikely.
Of course you probably understand that.
In answer to your actual question, there are two possibilities. One is that life goes on as normal, the other is that it doesn't. Given the gravity of the consequences of even a small error in these images, we must be completely sure of their accuracy.
I therefore nominate you to travel to the cat's eye nebula to check. In return I promise to do everything in my power to ensure that the language is still alive on your return, so that someone can understand your report.
Has anyone at Sony done gaol time yet? If not, why not?
It's obviously off topic, but it's really funny. I mean no one would seriously be stupid enough to support an international war criminal so passionately, would they?
I don't see the point in applying server rule processing to an email client. Why not add an email adapter to a business rules engine?... oh wait...