They weren't on the ships. The gunners on the ships, who were indeed men, in the days before you had artillery computers (machines) had charts and tables to look up the answers in. Books of them. Who calculated those charts and tables? Women in offices hired for the task. This was the standard procedure for solving numerical problems in the days before calculating machines (slide rules were only good for about three significant digits--fine for an estimate, but no good for work that required more accuracy. Also, pre-computed references were better for involved calculations for specialized purposes (like artillery ranging)). My dad got his degree in mechanical engineering back in the '50s; I still have his slide rule--and his book of mathematical tables.
Of course people had to these calculations back then; calculating machines that could do it were yet to be developed. The people hired to do it were almost invariably women. _When Computers Were Human_ (http://www.amazon.com/When-Computers-Human-David-Grier/dp/0691133824/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297235612&sr=8-1) is a good book on the subject, although it doesn't limit itself to WWII.
So what I come away with from this is, "My words don't mean what they say, they mean something else! If you can't figure out what that is, it's your own fault."
Are cars getting cheaper because labor costs have dropped? No, they aren't.
Um, actually, yes, they are. The car of today is cheaper (after adjusting for inflation), more efficient and more reliable then it has ever been.
The thing people are forgetting is that industry was invented to serve the population, not the other way around.
Exactly. I couldn't have put it better myself. And intentionally perpetuating inefficiencies in order to create makework jobs is trying to make the population at large serve industry.
The southern fire-eater broke the Democratic party in 1960.
What he got was Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman. The industrialization of the North. The settlement of the West. Vast expenditures on new technologies and infrastruture - investments he had blocked for decades.
Just because they haven't published a paper detailing their setup and results doesn't mean it's automatically bogus.
Just that that's the way the smart money bets. They've got no theory and they've got no reproducible results (since they won't give anybody the necessary information to reproduce it). That means they got a whole lot of nothing.
Ask yourself: if you have the choice between owning the rights to a revolutionary energy production system that could make you a multibillionaire overnight, or the choice of putting your name on a scientific paper outlining the details so others can get filthy rich while you get a pat on the back - what would you pick?
The first option does sound tempting. So, if they chose it, why are they telling the world at large *anything*? Keep it quiet and shop for selected (and secretive) investors if you need money.
So, yeah, it may be all a scam,
0.99999 it's a scam. Call back when they have independently reproduced results *or* they've revolutionized the energy sector.
but the absence of a paper isn't much of a reliable indicator.
But there isn't an absence of a paper. There's a presence of a paper that desperately tries to convince you they have something while refusing to give any solid evidence. That's generally a *very* reliable indicator.
One of the most common routers in the world can be loaded with third party firmware that is capable of IPv6. And 99% of the people who ever use it will never have any clue that such a thing even exists.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't be too hard. They're already disconnected from reality.
They weren't on the ships. The gunners on the ships, who were indeed men, in the days before you had artillery computers (machines) had charts and tables to look up the answers in. Books of them. Who calculated those charts and tables? Women in offices hired for the task. This was the standard procedure for solving numerical problems in the days before calculating machines (slide rules were only good for about three significant digits--fine for an estimate, but no good for work that required more accuracy. Also, pre-computed references were better for involved calculations for specialized purposes (like artillery ranging)). My dad got his degree in mechanical engineering back in the '50s; I still have his slide rule--and his book of mathematical tables.
Pre-empted by the summary. Nobody wants to post a Popeye joke when it's already been done up top.
Of course people had to these calculations back then; calculating machines that could do it were yet to be developed. The people hired to do it were almost invariably women. _When Computers Were Human_ (http://www.amazon.com/When-Computers-Human-David-Grier/dp/0691133824/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297235612&sr=8-1) is a good book on the subject, although it doesn't limit itself to WWII.
So what I come away with from this is, "My words don't mean what they say, they mean something else! If you can't figure out what that is, it's your own fault."
Um, actually, yes, they are. The car of today is cheaper (after adjusting for inflation), more efficient and more reliable then it has ever been.
Exactly. I couldn't have put it better myself. And intentionally perpetuating inefficiencies in order to create makework jobs is trying to make the population at large serve industry.
On the other hand, there's a good chance that people who hear music that isn't really there actually *are* crazy.
Meh. To me, a "Prog" will always be an issue of 2000AD.
Well, for one thing, it appears to be destructive to one's ability to create grammatically correct sentences.
There's an app for that.
But NT doesn't even support IPv6 unless you get the Trumpet IP stack for it...
I dunno--I don't see many stone hand axes these days.
Obama was never a Don; he didn't have enough time served to get the top. He's just a made man.
Er, do you mean *1860*?
The part where you ignored "working within the system" looked pretty incomplete to me.
There's a difference between voting for someone who loses and voting for someone who has absolutely no chance to win.
That would come under Column B: "When they've revolutionized the energy sector." Let me know when that happens, 'kay?
"Lord of the Ringworld"?
Just that that's the way the smart money bets. They've got no theory and they've got no reproducible results (since they won't give anybody the necessary information to reproduce it). That means they got a whole lot of nothing.
The first option does sound tempting. So, if they chose it, why are they telling the world at large *anything*? Keep it quiet and shop for selected (and secretive) investors if you need money.
0.99999 it's a scam. Call back when they have independently reproduced results *or* they've revolutionized the energy sector.
But there isn't an absence of a paper. There's a presence of a paper that desperately tries to convince you they have something while refusing to give any solid evidence. That's generally a *very* reliable indicator.
One of the most common routers in the world can be loaded with third party firmware that is capable of IPv6. And 99% of the people who ever use it will never have any clue that such a thing even exists.
And according to the article, it uses only a little less than 1.21 KW...
But he has to have it! It's getting him All the Internet!
And so can you!
Actually, the reboot will be "HTML Begins"
Numbers are so square. Introducing HTML version "Fred"!