I am being a total pedant, but the grandparent didn't say that Gailileo's theory was that the earth is round. In fact, he merely said "in Galileo's time" that theory would not have been accepted, which is no doubt true.
"No doubt true?" It's an urban legend that it used to be generally believed that the Earth was flat. Eratosthenes successfully measured the circumference of the Earth around 200 BC. In medieval heraldry, only the Holy Roman Emperor could use the symbol of the "closed" or arching crown; everyone else had to use the "open" or pointy crown. This was because the Holy Roman Emperor's dominion was over the entire (spherical) world, which the dome symbolized. And persons living in seaports have always been able to see vessels coming up over the horizon. None of these were innovations in Galileo's time, and the idea of the spherical earth was hardly perceived as ridiculous or unacceptable.
I would also point out that Galileo died in 1642, a hundred and twenty years after Magellan's circumnavigatory expedition was completed!
Problem is, would this lead to a tyranny of the majority? If something like Wikipedia were around in Gallileo's time, would it ever say that the earth is round?
It's funny that somebody pleading for reliability in scientific knowledge believes that Galileo's unpopular theory was that the earth was round.
The system you've described does exist. Once evidence has been presented early on in litigation, the defendant can, on the basis of plaintiff's witnesses, ask the court to throw out the lawsuit on grounds that, e.g., the law doesn't provide that somebody can sue for that, or that it's clear from plaintiff's evidence that he doesn't have a case. It's called 'summary judgment', and it very much does reduce frivolous lawsuits of all kinds.
Most of the "old wealth" in the US is still in the hands of those families whose ancestors controlled for a few decades the only economic means of transport to the American West.
Have you ever looked through the Forbes 400? "Old money" in the US is largely a myth.
The ten wealthiest individuals in America are Gates, Buffett, Paul Allen, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, and the Walton heirs. (Steve Ballmer is 11th, incidentally.) Of these, only the Waltons inherited their money, and that not from some ancient rail baron, but from a self-made man who died in 1992.
HMS Pinafore was refitted in 1907 as a mine-detection vessel, and was sold in 1912 to the Argentine Navy. Her namesake, the second HMS Pinafore, was commissioned in 1914 as part of the Paragon class of battlecruisers. Pinafore saw action and was badly damaged at the Battle of Coronel, and had to be scuttled two days later.
Re:It is still better than anything else....
on
The Simpsons Movie
·
· Score: 1
Ahh, but tell me exactly where they jumped the shark. That is the key. They haven't. They CAN'T. The nature of the show makes it impossible.
Oh, please. The show "CAN'T" get tired? How about when they've made every "Homer is stupid and injures himself frequently" joke and had a theme show about every minor character (a show about Apu, a show about Principal Skinner, a show about Ralph Wiggum... and by now they're scraping the bottom of the barrel).
The new shows are just forced. The humor used to be social satire, and is now either either zany slapstick or lazy surrealism.
Watch that again. Solo is reaching for his gun about ten lines before Greedo even gets threatening (aside from the initial exchange).
Yeah, but Solo realizes that Greedo is a bounty hunter who's been sent to find him. Isn't it a reasonable supposition that Greedo therefore means him bodily harm?
Now, if Greedo had been a messenger from Jabba or something, and Han had just shot him because he didn't like the message, that would be something different.
I don't get why people say that. In the dialogue, Greedo had just said the he was going to enjoy killing Solo in a moment, so Han shot first and killed Greedo in self-defense. It's not like Solo sneaked into the cantina, spied Greedo, and shot him in the back.
Re:Maybe solve immediate problems first? Hmm?
on
NASA's Own X Prize?
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
The captured solar energy of a 150 mile by 150 mile square area of Nevada desert would provide the United States with all its energy needs: consumer, residential, transportation, commercial and industrial; oil, gas, coal, electric, etc. combined. Yes. It's a fact.
Um, that's nice. Wake me when we have 100% efficient solar cells, so that we can actually have total "captured solar energy". Oh, and when it's possible to manufacture 22,500 square miles of solar panels without utilizing massive quantities of some very nasty materials. Oh, and when the things will install and maintain themselves. Oh, also, and when we cease to have power loss in transmission. Oh, and when we have retrofitted our entire economy to use one power source (alternating electric current), instead of the variety we currently use.
But we _are_ running out of oil.
No kidding. Like they told me in grade school, we'll be bone dry by 1985! Time to hit the panic button.
It's time we had Open Source Energy, don't you think?
Energy which is distributed so that its source code can be freely examined and modified by the end user?
Who was it you ask? Canada! How 'bout that, eh? Now ask yourself, why?
You've just described the French resistance, the founding fathers, the mujahudeen, the contras, the African National Congress, and a host of other US supported rebel groups, except the US didn't support the ANC and still considers Mandela to be a terrorist.
Perhaps you could explain how the French Resistance, the Founding Fathers, etc. directed violence against civilian populations, as the parent poster noted.
There is an exam they endure before they take office that tests things like verbal compentency etc.
You seem to be having a little difficulty with your own "verbal compentency". Furthermore, do you really believe that the President has to take a civil service exam before being sworn in?
Also, if you'll note, the parent poster was not claiming that President Bush was a merely average scholar, but that he was probably illiterate.
and he might not have time to read his email, but he sure makes times for those long-ass vacations.
He hasn't taken vacations which are significantly longer than any of his predecessors. FDR used to serve from Warm Springs, Georgia for greatly extended periods of time.
Moore does accuse Bush of being illiterate in that book, but I didn't buy it at the time. It really is kind of far fetched when you only have those two bits of information to go on. I'd even go so far as to say that Moore came off as an ass. But nothing has come out to refute his accusation. Far from it.
You mean aside from the fact that he has a BA from Yale and is the first President with an MBA (Harvard University, 1975)?
Except the whole being betrayed by one of his followers thing. Oh yeah, and "King of all Kings" sounds like an emperor to me. etc etc
Assuming you're even halfway serious, dozens of people in antiquity were betrayed by one of their own followers, from Quintus Sertorius to Gaius Caligula. And Julius Caesar was neither a king nor an emperor. He was Dictator, a post to which he was elected by the Senate, and meaning that he was chief executive of the Republic.
The only fix for our political problem, and those who would blow us up, is a LONG-TERM policy fix.
That is, of course, absolutely correct. It's just that the long-term policy fix demanded by those trying to blow us up is that we convert to Wahabist Islam and exterminate the Jews. That is the absolute long and short of their demands - not "social justice", not "economic equality", not "fair trade", not anything else.
The long-term policy fix proposed by our side is to eliminate the terrorists' willingness and ability to blow us up.
According to some, the New Testament is actually about Julius Caesar - the Jesus/Jerusalem part being a displacement of the original Julius/Rome.
Who are these "some"? I've never heard this theory propounded by anyone, and there are virtually no parallels at all between the life of Caesar and the life of Christ.
But if we found some exciting new minerals out there or some kinds that are extremely rare and valuable on earth I bet companies would be chomping at the bit to get out there.
I would roughly estimate that it would cost $100 million to return five pounds of these magical new minerals. Can you think of anything worth $20 million/pound?
I see so you meant there are fewer cars in the city, not fewer cars on the roads - it still leaves something of a hole in your argument, but either way it's just speculation eh?
Sure, I guess we're both just speculating because we don't have the comparative per-capita accident data we need to reach any firm conclusions. I am puzzled, however, what distinction you are drawing between "fewer cars in the city" and "fewer cars on the road". What do you suppose the cars are used for?
when exactly were you driving in Edinburgh if you're under the impression there aren't very many cars
The population of Edinburgh is approximately 450,000.
There are approximately 2,240,000 registered automobiles in the city of Houston, Texas. 72% of these are typically driven with only one occupant. Texas has two or three other cities with over a million cars in them, as the source I've drawn these numbers from is dated 1997, and these figures have rather increased since then.
It's only anecdotal evidence and by no means hard and fast truth but a friend of mine recently commented with surprise that he hasn't seen a "wreck" (meaning road traffic accident) since he moved here (Edinburgh) from Texas where his experience was that they're a common occurence.
It's probably a function of traffic volume and density. In Edinburgh, there are a reasonable number of cars, none of which are moving particularly fast. In Texas, at least in cities, there are a considerably larger number of cars (per capita), and they are moving faster (because the streets are straighter and were designed for automobile traffic). Consequently, you will see more traffic accidents. This doesn't have any bearing on traffic accident probabilities for any particular journey, however.
Simply put, your friend isn't seeing any accidents in Edinburgh because there aren't very many cars and they're going slowly. And, yes, I've driven in both Texas and Edinburgh.
Slashdot Mirror
"No doubt true?" It's an urban legend that it used to be generally believed that the Earth was flat. Eratosthenes successfully measured the circumference of the Earth around 200 BC. In medieval heraldry, only the Holy Roman Emperor could use the symbol of the "closed" or arching crown; everyone else had to use the "open" or pointy crown. This was because the Holy Roman Emperor's dominion was over the entire (spherical) world, which the dome symbolized. And persons living in seaports have always been able to see vessels coming up over the horizon. None of these were innovations in Galileo's time, and the idea of the spherical earth was hardly perceived as ridiculous or unacceptable.
I would also point out that Galileo died in 1642, a hundred and twenty years after Magellan's circumnavigatory expedition was completed!
It's funny that somebody pleading for reliability in scientific knowledge believes that Galileo's unpopular theory was that the earth was round.
The system you've described does exist. Once evidence has been presented early on in litigation, the defendant can, on the basis of plaintiff's witnesses, ask the court to throw out the lawsuit on grounds that, e.g., the law doesn't provide that somebody can sue for that, or that it's clear from plaintiff's evidence that he doesn't have a case. It's called 'summary judgment', and it very much does reduce frivolous lawsuits of all kinds.
Because they're falling all over themselves to rent "The Greatest Show on Earth" (1952) and "Going My Way" (1944).
And "How Green Was My Valley" (1941) is much more famous than that year's "Citizen Kane".
Have you ever looked through the Forbes 400? "Old money" in the US is largely a myth.
The ten wealthiest individuals in America are Gates, Buffett, Paul Allen, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, and the Walton heirs. (Steve Ballmer is 11th, incidentally.) Of these, only the Waltons inherited their money, and that not from some ancient rail baron, but from a self-made man who died in 1992.
Oh, please. The show "CAN'T" get tired? How about when they've made every "Homer is stupid and injures himself frequently" joke and had a theme show about every minor character (a show about Apu, a show about Principal Skinner, a show about Ralph Wiggum... and by now they're scraping the bottom of the barrel).
The new shows are just forced. The humor used to be social satire, and is now either either zany slapstick or lazy surrealism.
You idiot. Michelson and Morley proved that Ethernet is useless.
Yeah, but Solo realizes that Greedo is a bounty hunter who's been sent to find him. Isn't it a reasonable supposition that Greedo therefore means him bodily harm?
Now, if Greedo had been a messenger from Jabba or something, and Han had just shot him because he didn't like the message, that would be something different.
Because heaven knows one could never have an interesting book about a "dead white man".
I don't get why people say that. In the dialogue, Greedo had just said the he was going to enjoy killing Solo in a moment, so Han shot first and killed Greedo in self-defense. It's not like Solo sneaked into the cantina, spied Greedo, and shot him in the back.
Um, that's nice. Wake me when we have 100% efficient solar cells, so that we can actually have total "captured solar energy". Oh, and when it's possible to manufacture 22,500 square miles of solar panels without utilizing massive quantities of some very nasty materials. Oh, and when the things will install and maintain themselves. Oh, also, and when we cease to have power loss in transmission. Oh, and when we have retrofitted our entire economy to use one power source (alternating electric current), instead of the variety we currently use.
But we _are_ running out of oil.
No kidding. Like they told me in grade school, we'll be bone dry by 1985! Time to hit the panic button.
It's time we had Open Source Energy, don't you think?
Energy which is distributed so that its source code can be freely examined and modified by the end user?
Who was it you ask? Canada! How 'bout that, eh? Now ask yourself, why?
Because they're closer than everybody else?
Please tell me you're not really that stupid.
Perhaps you could explain how the French Resistance, the Founding Fathers, etc. directed violence against civilian populations, as the parent poster noted.
You seem to be having a little difficulty with your own "verbal compentency". Furthermore, do you really believe that the President has to take a civil service exam before being sworn in?
(in the 1970s. Before grade inflation.)
Also, if you'll note, the parent poster was not claiming that President Bush was a merely average scholar, but that he was probably illiterate.
and he might not have time to read his email, but he sure makes times for those long-ass vacations.
He hasn't taken vacations which are significantly longer than any of his predecessors. FDR used to serve from Warm Springs, Georgia for greatly extended periods of time.
You mean aside from the fact that he has a BA from Yale and is the first President with an MBA (Harvard University, 1975)?
Assuming you're even halfway serious, dozens of people in antiquity were betrayed by one of their own followers, from Quintus Sertorius to Gaius Caligula. And Julius Caesar was neither a king nor an emperor. He was Dictator, a post to which he was elected by the Senate, and meaning that he was chief executive of the Republic.
That is, of course, absolutely correct. It's just that the long-term policy fix demanded by those trying to blow us up is that we convert to Wahabist Islam and exterminate the Jews. That is the absolute long and short of their demands - not "social justice", not "economic equality", not "fair trade", not anything else.
The long-term policy fix proposed by our side is to eliminate the terrorists' willingness and ability to blow us up.
Who are these "some"? I've never heard this theory propounded by anyone, and there are virtually no parallels at all between the life of Caesar and the life of Christ.
I would roughly estimate that it would cost $100 million to return five pounds of these magical new minerals. Can you think of anything worth $20 million/pound?
I see so you meant there are fewer cars in the city, not fewer cars on the roads - it still leaves something of a hole in your argument, but either way it's just speculation eh?
Sure, I guess we're both just speculating because we don't have the comparative per-capita accident data we need to reach any firm conclusions. I am puzzled, however, what distinction you are drawing between "fewer cars in the city" and "fewer cars on the road". What do you suppose the cars are used for?
when exactly were you driving in Edinburgh if you're under the impression there aren't very many cars
The population of Edinburgh is approximately 450,000.
There are approximately 2,240,000 registered automobiles in the city of Houston, Texas. 72% of these are typically driven with only one occupant. Texas has two or three other cities with over a million cars in them, as the source I've drawn these numbers from is dated 1997, and these figures have rather increased since then.
It's probably a function of traffic volume and density. In Edinburgh, there are a reasonable number of cars, none of which are moving particularly fast. In Texas, at least in cities, there are a considerably larger number of cars (per capita), and they are moving faster (because the streets are straighter and were designed for automobile traffic). Consequently, you will see more traffic accidents. This doesn't have any bearing on traffic accident probabilities for any particular journey, however.
Simply put, your friend isn't seeing any accidents in Edinburgh because there aren't very many cars and they're going slowly. And, yes, I've driven in both Texas and Edinburgh.