There isn't a lake, but there is the remains of a once-large river (the Murray). It can't lose too much more water by the time it gets to Mildura because all those greedy fuckers growing cotton and rice further up river have already used most of it.
> Maybe if our eyes were on ends of long stalks...
This is in fact pretty much the effect you get in a stereoplotter, because the pairs of photos have their principal points several kilometres apart (depending on the flying height), with about 60% overlap. It's quite magical, as you have the visual illusion of having eyes maybe 10km apart, looking down on the earth. Some blokes used to get airsick.
I'm interested to learn this. Although I don't have spectacularly good stereo acuity, it's good enough to have worked as a photogrammetrist. However, now that I come to think of it, one of the other blokes on my basic survey course had really shitty stereo acuity (they fucked him off and he learnt how to do the lithographic part of the map-making process instead), and he drove quite well.
I'd be very interested to know what the other depth-perception cues are - I'd guess one would be focus, but that still leaves a few.
I'd think it _is_ a serious disablity when you're driving. After all, without depth-perception you're unable to accurately judge distances, and far more likely to sodomise the car ahead of you.
I think he's talking about folding pocket stereoscopes, one brand of which was "Cassella". I used to use them, and larger deskbound equivalents, as well as precise stereoplotters, when I was an army cartographer. Cassellas were used by phot interpreters during WW2, if not even earlier.
I was actually quite interested to find that I could see the stereo images without a viewer (as I'd never been able to before).
Your major mistake is in confusing Creationism with a scientific theory. It isn't one, as it is not falsifiable. (If you don't believe me, try convincing a Creationist that there is no scientific evidence supporting their position.)
Theories of evolution, on the other hand, are in principle falsifiable (although I can't think quite how to do it - I'm not a biologist, after all - but you'd just have to have some fact which was inconsistent with the predictions of the theory), and are therefore scientific theories.
I'm not quite sure why you believe that Darwinism and its successors are unwieldy and lack predictive power - my understanding (based on good general knowledge and wide reading rather than specialist knowledge) is that biologists generally accept evolution and species adaption precisely because these theories have enormous predictive power, while acknowledging that Darwin certainly didn't have all the answers and was mistaken in many of the details of his original theory.
Additionally, you appear to be setting up a straw man with your statements about rabid neo-darwinists. I don't think any people who accept evolution would claim that the theory is absolutely correct, although this is something creationist credit them with far too often. In fact it is the creationists who claim that their "theory" is absolutely correct, while refusing to allow any of the evidence which contradicts their ideas.
You wouldn't happen to be a creationist by any chance would you?
$5 a gallon? That's about what we pay in Australia. ($A1 per litre works out to about $A5 per gallon (US gallon, not Imperial gallon). Although $A1 $US1 on the currency exchange, we can buy about the same amount of stuff here for $A1 as you can for $US1, so the real value of each currency is about the same.)
Fuck! How many times do people have to say creationism is NOT a scientific theory? It's theology, which is a formal system (although nowhere near as rigorous as, e.g., mathematics), which means IT IS NOT FUCKING SCIENCE.
Although Kuhn's book is interesting, and describes the way in which different scientific theories evolved in the past, you shot yourself in the foot by calling creationism a scientific theory. It is not. It has absolutely nothing to do with science, as it is theology.
The definition of "reputable" is not as self-referential as you are suggesting. However, there does seem to be a high correlation between the designations "reputable climatologist" and "believes global warming is real, and to a great extent the result of human activity". Disclaimer: I am not a climatologist (nor, indeed a scientist), but I do know enough science to be convinced that the reputable climatologists are correct.
OSI, like ASN.1, is one of those beautiful, elegant French things that look great in theory, but are rather hard to understand, and a fucking nightmare to implement. In fact, I didn't realise anyone had actually implemented OSI. It must have a lot of market penetration...
I think the most insulting Peace Prize awarded was the one Henry Kissinger got - after all, it prompted Tom Lehrer to quit writing satirical songs, on the grounds that Kissinger's prize had made satire irrelevant.
I'd rather watch rugby. For you Americans, it's kind of like gridiron, only the players don't wear all that nancy-boy body armour, nor do they stop playing every three or four seconds.
That said, I'd _much_ rather watch Australian Rules football. At least they actually kick the ball instead of just throwing it to each other all the time.
I reckon it's great - I've hardly had to water my garden this summer. Which is really good now that our competitive, privately-owned water is sooo much cheaper...
This is all very well for those of you who live in shitty cold climates like England and most of North America, but for those of us who already live in hot, dry places like Australia (except of course Melbourne), it is not good news.
Slashdot Mirror
There isn't a lake, but there is the remains of a once-large river (the Murray). It can't lose too much more water by the time it gets to Mildura because all those greedy fuckers growing cotton and rice further up river have already used most of it.
Now hang on a minute, I'm pretty sure that OSI (and ASN.1, another fucking nightmare) was pretty much caused by the French.
I always thought it stood for British Small Arms. You know, the motorcycle manufacturer.
> Maybe if our eyes were on ends of long stalks ...
This is in fact pretty much the effect you get in a stereoplotter, because the pairs of photos have their principal points several kilometres apart (depending on the flying height), with about 60% overlap. It's quite magical, as you have the visual illusion of having eyes maybe 10km apart, looking down on the earth. Some blokes used to get airsick.
I'm interested to learn this. Although I don't have spectacularly good stereo acuity, it's good enough to have worked as a photogrammetrist. However, now that I come to think of it, one of the other blokes on my basic survey course had really shitty stereo acuity (they fucked him off and he learnt how to do the lithographic part of the map-making process instead), and he drove quite well.
I'd be very interested to know what the other depth-perception cues are - I'd guess one would be focus, but that still leaves a few.
I'd think it _is_ a serious disablity when you're driving. After all, without depth-perception you're unable to accurately judge distances, and far more likely to sodomise the car ahead of you.
I think he's talking about folding pocket stereoscopes, one brand of which was "Cassella". I used to use them, and larger deskbound equivalents, as well as precise stereoplotters, when I was an army cartographer. Cassellas were used by phot interpreters during WW2, if not even earlier.
I was actually quite interested to find that I could see the stereo images without a viewer (as I'd never been able to before).
Your major mistake is in confusing Creationism with a scientific theory. It isn't one, as it is not falsifiable. (If you don't believe me, try convincing a Creationist that there is no scientific evidence supporting their position.)
Theories of evolution, on the other hand, are in principle falsifiable (although I can't think quite how to do it - I'm not a biologist, after all - but you'd just have to have some fact which was inconsistent with the predictions of the theory), and are therefore scientific theories.
I'm not quite sure why you believe that Darwinism and its successors are unwieldy and lack predictive power - my understanding (based on good general knowledge and wide reading rather than specialist knowledge) is that biologists generally accept evolution and species adaption precisely because these theories have enormous predictive power, while acknowledging that Darwin certainly didn't have all the answers and was mistaken in many of the details of his original theory.
Additionally, you appear to be setting up a straw man with your statements about rabid neo-darwinists. I don't think any people who accept evolution would claim that the theory is absolutely correct, although this is something creationist credit them with far too often. In fact it is the creationists who claim that their "theory" is absolutely correct, while refusing to allow any of the evidence which contradicts their ideas.
You wouldn't happen to be a creationist by any chance would you?
Ypou've lost about three toes so far. Care to go for a fourth?
$5 a gallon? That's about what we pay in Australia. ($A1 per litre works out to about $A5 per gallon (US gallon, not Imperial gallon). Although $A1 $US1 on the currency exchange, we can buy about the same amount of stuff here for $A1 as you can for $US1, so the real value of each currency is about the same.)
I don't quite see your problem.
Actually, it's a pretty good analogy (although I know argument from analogy has problems).
Fuck! How many times do people have to say creationism is NOT a scientific theory? It's theology, which is a formal system (although nowhere near as rigorous as, e.g., mathematics), which means IT IS NOT FUCKING SCIENCE.
Although Kuhn's book is interesting, and describes the way in which different scientific theories evolved in the past, you shot yourself in the foot by calling creationism a scientific theory. It is not. It has absolutely nothing to do with science, as it is theology.
The definition of "reputable" is not as self-referential as you are suggesting. However, there does seem to be a high correlation between the designations "reputable climatologist" and "believes global warming is real, and to a great extent the result of human activity". Disclaimer: I am not a climatologist (nor, indeed a scientist), but I do know enough science to be convinced that the reputable climatologists are correct.
OSI, like ASN.1, is one of those beautiful, elegant French things that look great in theory, but are rather hard to understand, and a fucking nightmare to implement. In fact, I didn't realise anyone had actually implemented OSI. It must have a lot of market penetration ...
I think the most insulting Peace Prize awarded was the one Henry Kissinger got - after all, it prompted Tom Lehrer to quit writing satirical songs, on the grounds that Kissinger's prize had made satire irrelevant.
Yeah, I know, but if you live in Adelaide, you just _have_ to sink the boot about Melbourne's weather - it's a patriotic duty.
I'd rather watch rugby. For you Americans, it's kind of like gridiron, only the players don't wear all that nancy-boy body armour, nor do they stop playing every three or four seconds.
That said, I'd _much_ rather watch Australian Rules football. At least they actually kick the ball instead of just throwing it to each other all the time.
We live here. We _are_ aware of it, I assure you.
I reckon it's great - I've hardly had to water my garden this summer. Which is really good now that our competitive, privately-owned water is sooo much cheaper ...
Thanks for the interesting link.
This is all very well for those of you who live in shitty cold climates like England and most of North America, but for those of us who already live in hot, dry places like Australia (except of course Melbourne), it is not good news.
No, we (or at least a majority of us) voted _not_ to become a republic. Unfortunately.
I think his point was that Clinton was not really distinguishable from a Republican.
I'm not sure I completely agree, but I can see his point.
I doubt very much whether she is a genuine feminist. I don't think her incompetence and greed had much to do with pushing a feminist agenda, either.