I'm getting it from, of all places, the bible. Specifically, the Latin Vulgate - I learned more than enough Latin in two decades of Catholicism to be able to read it, with regular glances at a dictionary. There's some debate as to the quality of the translation, but a) it was the "standard" bible for far longer than any preceding *or* succeeding version, b) it was the basis for most other translations (only recently have English translations been done directly from the greek and hebrew), and c) the translators were far closer to the authors than we are, and so are less likely to distort it to a *modern* worldview.
The Exodus bit is a bit of a stretch - it pretty specifically says "if fighting men hit a woman who is pregnant" as a qualifier ("si rixati fuerint viri et percusserit quis mulierem praegnantem"). I would interpret that as a prohibition on forced abortions, which I don't think many people would argue with, but interpreting it as a blanket ban on abortion is extending things further than the literal text can support.
The Corinthians is a mistranslation on somebody's part. The Vulgate reads "neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari neque ebriosi neque maledici neque rapaces". I would translate that list as "fornicators, servers of idols, adulterers, the soft, the male concubines, thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and the greedy". The New International, and some others, seems to translate "molles" as "homosexuals", which is blatantly wrong (the same word is used as an adjective when Matthew speaks of "soft raiment"). King James translates that as "the effeminate", which most other translations agree with. So that at least relies on God speaking very indirectly to get to the point (if there's one thing Latin has no lack of, it's words for homosexuality - paedico, paedicator, pathicus, irrumator, et cetera). Honestly, given the phrasing, it almost seems like a later addition to the verse.
So yeah, even if I *did* still accept the bible as infallible, I would not be convinced by your citations.
There's nothing in the Bible about abortion or gun laws, and barely anything about homosexuality, yet those are like the three biggest religious-right political issues. And hell, Jesus was basically more pro-communist than Lenin, but during the Cold War, no siree, it's us good Christian capitalists versus those damned heathen commies. So obviously "it wasn't in scripture" isn't going to stop religious nuts.
Why? Without solar panels, it would quickly run out of power, so you'd get barely anything done even if the antenna did deploy. Having the antenna underneath the panels probably helped protect it during atmospheric entry and landing as well.
the "Google now knows exactly what my eyes are tracking in any given image" kind of creepy. I'm not a millenial, so I probably sound like an old coot, but Google already knows enough about us - phones, search, Gmail, etc.
And that creepy stuff is why I'm not going to buy an eyepiece computer from Google. Or from Apple, or from Facebook (even Oculus), or from Microsoft. I'm already concerned with how much Google knows about me. I'm not giving them any more.
That said, I would gladly buy an eyepiece computer, but it would have to be from a company that does not do data-mining at all. I'd actually be fine with one that doesn't even have mobile internet, and works as a self-contained computer.
I tried to look up what age group this dictionary targets. It took a while to find, because this particular dictionary seems to exist in a sort of quasi-online, quasi-physical state, where the book's website tells you to go buy it, and the official OUP site doesn't recognize it.
Anyways, it's apparently aimed at ages 7 and up, and defines 13,000 words over 288 pages. You might be able to justify it, if these words are no longer in the top 13k words by usage. Then again, the common words aren't the ones you need a definition for.
Let's see here: Albert Einstein - Nobel-winning physicist Richard Feynman - Nobel-winning physicist, later used his celebrity power to popularize physics through his books Carl Sagan - Astrophysicist (PhD thesis was "Physical Study of Planets", much of his work involved determining environmental conditions on other planets and moons), simultaneously was a television host and science celebrity Stephen Hawking - Physicist (PhD thesis was on singularities in spacetime), author, and occasionally played himself on TV. Neil deGrasse Tyson - Astrophysicist (PhD thesis was on star distribution in the galactic bulge), author, television host and science celebrity.
Well, Einstein's the only one who (AFAIK) was not a major pop writer. Tyson's the only one with a Twitter feed. Hawking's the only one with a physical disability, and Feynman was the only one to do engineering as well as science. So I'm actually not sure who you think is different from all the others.
Attacking, with extreme precision, those who committed or are responsible for the attacks, is completely justified. I was speaking against larger-scale retaliation against muslims as a whole, which a surprising number of people seem to feel justified.
Our strongest weapon in the fight against extremist religious groups is continued freedom.
If they attack us over free speech, let us speak ten times as freely.
If they attack us over free religion, let us start ten new churches of ten different faiths.
If they attack us for treating people equally, let us treat them equally as well.
We should not attack them in retaliation - that just makes us both wrong. Violence will not solve this problem. This is a war of ideas - and freedom of speech will carry our ideas further and louder than theirs ever will. It will take generations, but it's already in progress. They are resorting to violence now because they can already see that they cannot win by words.
The sea platform isn't the end-goal. This is just to prove that they can safely land it, so they can be approved for it to return to US airspace for a ground landing.
It only has to work a few times, then it'll get mothballed. Or maybe shelved, to use whenever they need an emergency landing platform for some reason.
This was a common trick back with the early Xbox 360 and the Red Ring of Death plague. The version I most frequently heard involved wrapping it in towels as well, to insulate other components from the heat.
The expected mission life of the rover was 90 days. It is currently on day 3885.
They expected to run out of power several years ago. Thus, they did not design other parts of the system to last as long as it has. Given the designed lifetime, it would have been absurd to add the extra weight of a heating system, if such a thing could even be powered at all.
For a car analogy, that would be like reinforcing your transmission because after 10,000,000 miles it starts to get a bit off-balance.
What South Korea should do is invade North Korea, topple their government, depose their "glorious leader", disarm their military, and then hand it over to China, saying "you're the ones who propped up their insane government and made all this mess, you get to deal with all the consequences."
How about a compromise - let's let Sony pay for the war. Just give them a one-time legal exception, let them hire whatever mercenaries (excuse me... "private military contractors") they want, then invade. It would cost Sony probably one or two years' profits, but they might be able to get other corporations to buy in under the idea that they'd be the next to be attacked.
That does leave the question of what to do with NK afterwards, but we can deal with that once it becomes an actual issue.
In China (and most east-asian cultures), you never disrespect rulers. It simply is not done, and they see it as a grave insult to the entire nation to do so.
In west-european and north-american cultures, particularly the US, everyone is a fair target for mockery. We mock Kim Jong-eun because he does things worth making fun of. We mocked Hitler because he did things worth making fun of, and we continue to do so. We also mocked Obama, Bush, Clinton... we still regularly mock Nixon, just because it's still funny. Britain makes fun of Cameron, and to a lesser extent, the Royal Family. We have entire industries based around making a mockery of our political leaders, and we would be insulted if you asked us to stop.
The only ones we do not mock are those who do absolutely nothing and are of no significance whatsoever. It would be a greater insult for us to NOT satirize them, because that says we don't give a single shit about them, that they are not even worthy of our derision.
Well, it seems we're disregarding the actual story in lieu of bitching about textbooks. So here's my story of interest:
My own stupid textbook story is from Statics. The prof listed a textbook, title, version and ISBN. I ordered online to save some cash, everyone else bought from the campus bookstore.
About two weeks in, I've failed every homework problem. Turns out the version that was listed, and the version I had bought, was the METRIC version, while the campus bookstore had ordered the IMPERIAL version, which everyone else, including the professor, had (I checked the ISBNs, mine was right, so either they have two versions under the same number, or the bookstore "corrected" it to the imperial version). The problems were the same, save for the units.
Brief aside: Why the hell is there even an engineering textbook in non-metric units? Who the hell is designing bridges in feet, pounds and slugs? It's probably just to keep American students from buying cheaper foreign copies.
In any case, we worked out a deal - I just copied the text of the problem before showing my work. My grade instantly shot up. Not quite to an A- despite having passed an "Algebra and Trigonometry" class, I'd never actually been taught trig, and was trying to learn it independently for both Statics and Calc II.
Those boosters aren't boosters, they're a side-mounted first stage, because the first liquid engine isn't even ignited until shortly before the boosters separate.
The first stage, then, is a pair of pretty standard solid rockets. A bit under half the thrust of a Shuttle booster, and about a third the mass.
The second stage is a pair of hypergolic liquid rockets, using UDMH and N2O4. Normally that's a sign of military heritage - hypergolic fuels are common in ICBM designs because they're storable at room temperature, and guarantee that the missile will at least launch. Purely civilian designs rarely use such fuels, because they're dangerous as hell, RP-1+LOX is cheaper, and you would generally prefer an aborted launch to an explosion. But in this case it actually makes sense - if you were on the ground and RP-1+LOX failed to ignite, you just try again tomorrow, but if you're already in the air, you're screwed if it doesn't ignite. It also gets about the same efficiency as RP1+LOX.
The third stage is supposed to be LH2+LOX, but was not used on this test flight. Perfectly reasonable for an upper stage, where the low thrust is less important than the high efficiency.
Overall, a bit different design than most rockets, but not in a bad way.
The current prevailing theory is that North Korea hired outside hackers for this job. That fits the level of skill shown (less than CIA-level, more than skiddie level), the damage done, and even North Korea's response (had it been homegrown hackers, I'm not sure Kim could have helped but shout it out to the world).
Also, pointing out that an action was illogical in no way proves that it was not North Korea. They have shown time and time again to be a country that makes bad decisions, and acts with little regard for the consequences.
North Korea is the greater of the two evils, undoubtedly, but they gained nothing by doing this. And maybe, just maybe, this will be the final straw that makes the world take action against them. Meanwhile, I'm just going to sit back and laugh.
It's like if Adolf Hitler started heckling Fred Phelps during a speech. Sure, you hate both of them, but you're not going to stop him unless he either starts targeting someone who isn't a walking piece of crap, or he starts benefiting from it somehow.
I covered that. Read their denial closely - they spend as much time praising the attack as they do denying that it was them in an official capacity.
If they officially state that they did it, there would be official responses. But unless there's some absolutely definitive evidence found, even though it was quite obviously North Korea, no prosecutor would be willing to make that official accusation. By unofficially endorsing it, but officially disavowing that it was them, they are claiming responsibility in a fully deniable, un-actionable way.
Who else has motive to threaten the moviegoers? That doesn't fit with any alternative hypothesis, unless it's misdirection to make us think it's North Korea. If it were for profit, that doesn't get them any more money. If it were revenge for the shitty things Sony has done, they wouldn't threaten their customers (who are pretty much just innocent bystanders as far as that goes). If it were a rival studio, that could have just as much an effect on their movie performance as Sony's (terrorist attacks are notoriously imprecise).
Perhaps I'm wrong, and it's a group that's trying very hard to make it look like North Korea is behind it. As misdirection ploys go, it's a brilliant one. But their act is too convincing - this fits North Korea too well, in my opinion, to be anyone but them.
It's pretty transparent that these hackers are North Korean. Fuck North Korea.
On the other hand, fuck Sony. I can't say that enough - FUCK SONY.
This doesn't help NK in any way. Oh, this movie is blasphemous to their state-mandated religion, worshipping the rotting corpse of Kim I and Kim II? This movie was never going to be seen by anyone in that entire country, if for the simple reason that so few of them can even afford it. I doubt they can even use this hack as internal propaganda, because the simple fact that such a movie exists shows how little the outside world cares about North Korea. And nobody's fooled by their disavowal - this is just more proof that they're a bunch of thugs.
This hurts Sony. First the humiliation of the hack. Then the financial damage. Then the humiliation of acceding to terrorist demands. They may have had a bad reputation in our circles for years now, but they've now lost face in the mainstream media, too.
So yeah, our enemies are fighting and both of them are losing. Time to break out the popcorn.
Rockets themselves are expensive. Rocket fuel, particularly the sort SpaceX uses, is dirt cheap in comparison - only $200K of their $56M launch cost.
Yes, having that extra fuel decreases their payload capacity (from what it could be). But they don't need as much fuel when descending, since they no longer have a second stage and payload weighing them down, so it isn't much fuel in total.
However, the cost of not having to rebuild the rocket every time is much more significant. Even if they can only reuse it a few times, that's a lot of production cost being saved.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm getting it from, of all places, the bible. Specifically, the Latin Vulgate - I learned more than enough Latin in two decades of Catholicism to be able to read it, with regular glances at a dictionary. There's some debate as to the quality of the translation, but a) it was the "standard" bible for far longer than any preceding *or* succeeding version, b) it was the basis for most other translations (only recently have English translations been done directly from the greek and hebrew), and c) the translators were far closer to the authors than we are, and so are less likely to distort it to a *modern* worldview.
The Exodus bit is a bit of a stretch - it pretty specifically says "if fighting men hit a woman who is pregnant" as a qualifier ("si rixati fuerint viri et percusserit quis mulierem praegnantem"). I would interpret that as a prohibition on forced abortions, which I don't think many people would argue with, but interpreting it as a blanket ban on abortion is extending things further than the literal text can support.
The Corinthians is a mistranslation on somebody's part. The Vulgate reads "neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari neque ebriosi neque maledici neque rapaces". I would translate that list as "fornicators, servers of idols, adulterers, the soft, the male concubines, thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and the greedy". The New International, and some others, seems to translate "molles" as "homosexuals", which is blatantly wrong (the same word is used as an adjective when Matthew speaks of "soft raiment"). King James translates that as "the effeminate", which most other translations agree with. So that at least relies on God speaking very indirectly to get to the point (if there's one thing Latin has no lack of, it's words for homosexuality - paedico, paedicator, pathicus, irrumator, et cetera). Honestly, given the phrasing, it almost seems like a later addition to the verse.
So yeah, even if I *did* still accept the bible as infallible, I would not be convinced by your citations.
There's nothing in the Bible about abortion or gun laws, and barely anything about homosexuality, yet those are like the three biggest religious-right political issues. And hell, Jesus was basically more pro-communist than Lenin, but during the Cold War, no siree, it's us good Christian capitalists versus those damned heathen commies. So obviously "it wasn't in scripture" isn't going to stop religious nuts.
Why? Without solar panels, it would quickly run out of power, so you'd get barely anything done even if the antenna did deploy. Having the antenna underneath the panels probably helped protect it during atmospheric entry and landing as well.
And that creepy stuff is why I'm not going to buy an eyepiece computer from Google. Or from Apple, or from Facebook (even Oculus), or from Microsoft. I'm already concerned with how much Google knows about me. I'm not giving them any more.
That said, I would gladly buy an eyepiece computer, but it would have to be from a company that does not do data-mining at all. I'd actually be fine with one that doesn't even have mobile internet, and works as a self-contained computer.
I tried to look up what age group this dictionary targets. It took a while to find, because this particular dictionary seems to exist in a sort of quasi-online, quasi-physical state, where the book's website tells you to go buy it, and the official OUP site doesn't recognize it.
Anyways, it's apparently aimed at ages 7 and up, and defines 13,000 words over 288 pages. You might be able to justify it, if these words are no longer in the top 13k words by usage. Then again, the common words aren't the ones you need a definition for.
Let's see here:
Albert Einstein - Nobel-winning physicist
Richard Feynman - Nobel-winning physicist, later used his celebrity power to popularize physics through his books
Carl Sagan - Astrophysicist (PhD thesis was "Physical Study of Planets", much of his work involved determining environmental conditions on other planets and moons), simultaneously was a television host and science celebrity
Stephen Hawking - Physicist (PhD thesis was on singularities in spacetime), author, and occasionally played himself on TV.
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Astrophysicist (PhD thesis was on star distribution in the galactic bulge), author, television host and science celebrity.
Well, Einstein's the only one who (AFAIK) was not a major pop writer. Tyson's the only one with a Twitter feed. Hawking's the only one with a physical disability, and Feynman was the only one to do engineering as well as science. So I'm actually not sure who you think is different from all the others.
Perhaps I should have been clearer.
Attacking, with extreme precision, those who committed or are responsible for the attacks, is completely justified. I was speaking against larger-scale retaliation against muslims as a whole, which a surprising number of people seem to feel justified.
Our strongest weapon in the fight against extremist religious groups is continued freedom.
If they attack us over free speech, let us speak ten times as freely.
If they attack us over free religion, let us start ten new churches of ten different faiths.
If they attack us for treating people equally, let us treat them equally as well.
We should not attack them in retaliation - that just makes us both wrong. Violence will not solve this problem. This is a war of ideas - and freedom of speech will carry our ideas further and louder than theirs ever will. It will take generations, but it's already in progress. They are resorting to violence now because they can already see that they cannot win by words.
The sea platform isn't the end-goal. This is just to prove that they can safely land it, so they can be approved for it to return to US airspace for a ground landing.
It only has to work a few times, then it'll get mothballed. Or maybe shelved, to use whenever they need an emergency landing platform for some reason.
Paper? Paper? Back in my day all we had was clay and stone tablets!
What the fuck does this idiot want from them, a warp drive?
Yes, a warp drive would be nice, if it's not too much of a bother.
This was a common trick back with the early Xbox 360 and the Red Ring of Death plague. The version I most frequently heard involved wrapping it in towels as well, to insulate other components from the heat.
The expected mission life of the rover was 90 days. It is currently on day 3885.
They expected to run out of power several years ago. Thus, they did not design other parts of the system to last as long as it has. Given the designed lifetime, it would have been absurd to add the extra weight of a heating system, if such a thing could even be powered at all.
For a car analogy, that would be like reinforcing your transmission because after 10,000,000 miles it starts to get a bit off-balance.
What South Korea should do is invade North Korea, topple their government, depose their "glorious leader", disarm their military, and then hand it over to China, saying "you're the ones who propped up their insane government and made all this mess, you get to deal with all the consequences."
How about a compromise - let's let Sony pay for the war. Just give them a one-time legal exception, let them hire whatever mercenaries (excuse me... "private military contractors") they want, then invade. It would cost Sony probably one or two years' profits, but they might be able to get other corporations to buy in under the idea that they'd be the next to be attacked.
That does leave the question of what to do with NK afterwards, but we can deal with that once it becomes an actual issue.
In China (and most east-asian cultures), you never disrespect rulers. It simply is not done, and they see it as a grave insult to the entire nation to do so.
In west-european and north-american cultures, particularly the US, everyone is a fair target for mockery. We mock Kim Jong-eun because he does things worth making fun of. We mocked Hitler because he did things worth making fun of, and we continue to do so. We also mocked Obama, Bush, Clinton... we still regularly mock Nixon, just because it's still funny. Britain makes fun of Cameron, and to a lesser extent, the Royal Family. We have entire industries based around making a mockery of our political leaders, and we would be insulted if you asked us to stop.
The only ones we do not mock are those who do absolutely nothing and are of no significance whatsoever. It would be a greater insult for us to NOT satirize them, because that says we don't give a single shit about them, that they are not even worthy of our derision.
Well, it seems we're disregarding the actual story in lieu of bitching about textbooks. So here's my story of interest:
My own stupid textbook story is from Statics. The prof listed a textbook, title, version and ISBN. I ordered online to save some cash, everyone else bought from the campus bookstore.
About two weeks in, I've failed every homework problem. Turns out the version that was listed, and the version I had bought, was the METRIC version, while the campus bookstore had ordered the IMPERIAL version, which everyone else, including the professor, had (I checked the ISBNs, mine was right, so either they have two versions under the same number, or the bookstore "corrected" it to the imperial version). The problems were the same, save for the units.
Brief aside: Why the hell is there even an engineering textbook in non-metric units? Who the hell is designing bridges in feet, pounds and slugs? It's probably just to keep American students from buying cheaper foreign copies.
In any case, we worked out a deal - I just copied the text of the problem before showing my work. My grade instantly shot up. Not quite to an A- despite having passed an "Algebra and Trigonometry" class, I'd never actually been taught trig, and was trying to learn it independently for both Statics and Calc II.
Can I use my AR social cloud drone to find Uber rides to my local hackerspace? I need to build a rack of Raspberry Pis to mine cryptocurrencies with.
Those boosters aren't boosters, they're a side-mounted first stage, because the first liquid engine isn't even ignited until shortly before the boosters separate.
The first stage, then, is a pair of pretty standard solid rockets. A bit under half the thrust of a Shuttle booster, and about a third the mass.
The second stage is a pair of hypergolic liquid rockets, using UDMH and N2O4. Normally that's a sign of military heritage - hypergolic fuels are common in ICBM designs because they're storable at room temperature, and guarantee that the missile will at least launch. Purely civilian designs rarely use such fuels, because they're dangerous as hell, RP-1+LOX is cheaper, and you would generally prefer an aborted launch to an explosion. But in this case it actually makes sense - if you were on the ground and RP-1+LOX failed to ignite, you just try again tomorrow, but if you're already in the air, you're screwed if it doesn't ignite. It also gets about the same efficiency as RP1+LOX.
The third stage is supposed to be LH2+LOX, but was not used on this test flight. Perfectly reasonable for an upper stage, where the low thrust is less important than the high efficiency.
Overall, a bit different design than most rockets, but not in a bad way.
I really doubt they're putting these into a high enough orbit for that to be a problem. These thing will probably deorbit in less than a year.
The current prevailing theory is that North Korea hired outside hackers for this job. That fits the level of skill shown (less than CIA-level, more than skiddie level), the damage done, and even North Korea's response (had it been homegrown hackers, I'm not sure Kim could have helped but shout it out to the world).
Also, pointing out that an action was illogical in no way proves that it was not North Korea. They have shown time and time again to be a country that makes bad decisions, and acts with little regard for the consequences.
Why do you have to take either side?
North Korea is the greater of the two evils, undoubtedly, but they gained nothing by doing this. And maybe, just maybe, this will be the final straw that makes the world take action against them. Meanwhile, I'm just going to sit back and laugh.
It's like if Adolf Hitler started heckling Fred Phelps during a speech. Sure, you hate both of them, but you're not going to stop him unless he either starts targeting someone who isn't a walking piece of crap, or he starts benefiting from it somehow.
I covered that. Read their denial closely - they spend as much time praising the attack as they do denying that it was them in an official capacity.
If they officially state that they did it, there would be official responses. But unless there's some absolutely definitive evidence found, even though it was quite obviously North Korea, no prosecutor would be willing to make that official accusation. By unofficially endorsing it, but officially disavowing that it was them, they are claiming responsibility in a fully deniable, un-actionable way.
Who else has motive to threaten the moviegoers? That doesn't fit with any alternative hypothesis, unless it's misdirection to make us think it's North Korea. If it were for profit, that doesn't get them any more money. If it were revenge for the shitty things Sony has done, they wouldn't threaten their customers (who are pretty much just innocent bystanders as far as that goes). If it were a rival studio, that could have just as much an effect on their movie performance as Sony's (terrorist attacks are notoriously imprecise).
Perhaps I'm wrong, and it's a group that's trying very hard to make it look like North Korea is behind it. As misdirection ploys go, it's a brilliant one. But their act is too convincing - this fits North Korea too well, in my opinion, to be anyone but them.
I know they're a bunch of unreliable liars, but it seems the US government agrees with me, for whatever that's worth.
It's pretty transparent that these hackers are North Korean. Fuck North Korea.
On the other hand, fuck Sony. I can't say that enough - FUCK SONY.
This doesn't help NK in any way. Oh, this movie is blasphemous to their state-mandated religion, worshipping the rotting corpse of Kim I and Kim II? This movie was never going to be seen by anyone in that entire country, if for the simple reason that so few of them can even afford it. I doubt they can even use this hack as internal propaganda, because the simple fact that such a movie exists shows how little the outside world cares about North Korea. And nobody's fooled by their disavowal - this is just more proof that they're a bunch of thugs.
This hurts Sony. First the humiliation of the hack. Then the financial damage. Then the humiliation of acceding to terrorist demands. They may have had a bad reputation in our circles for years now, but they've now lost face in the mainstream media, too.
So yeah, our enemies are fighting and both of them are losing. Time to break out the popcorn.
Rockets themselves are expensive. Rocket fuel, particularly the sort SpaceX uses, is dirt cheap in comparison - only $200K of their $56M launch cost.
Yes, having that extra fuel decreases their payload capacity (from what it could be). But they don't need as much fuel when descending, since they no longer have a second stage and payload weighing them down, so it isn't much fuel in total.
However, the cost of not having to rebuild the rocket every time is much more significant. Even if they can only reuse it a few times, that's a lot of production cost being saved.