Very interesting, I'm a native norwegian speaker with an interest in whaling history, and the minke theory jars with way whales have traditionally been named.
Generally, as you pointed out, the naming is practical and not derived from a person or event, thus right whale (Retthval) is the right one to catch, sperm whale has a head full of semen-like oil etc.
The story of the minke whale would make more sense if seen in this framework as in norwegian the word "minke" is a verb "to lessen or reduce" thus someone mistaking the lesser rorqual (vågehval, literally "daring whale" for it's impudent tendency to come into fjords within sight of the coastal whalers) for the right whale, which is a physically similar but much larger fin whale, might be ridiculed for how his whale had "shrunk"... The story is attributed to a diffuse member of Svend Foyn's crew, but this is roughly eqivalent to something being an Abe Lincoln quote, as Foyn was probably the most famous whaler that ever lived. (at least to the norwegians)
The choice of minke whale was one I came across during the 1992 "No Way Norway" Greenpeace anti-whaling campaign, where I raised the issue of nomenclature and the explanation was given that minke whale was a name that stuck more readily in people's minds and was more easily identifiable, containing the word "whale" and not the diminutive "lesser", also "minke" is cuter than "rorqual"
Mhe reason I say it is japanese is because afaik, (I don't speak japanese) minkku kujira is the official name in japanese.
So I may be wrong, but the idea is certainly not preposterous.
I have no idea where the minke whale fallacy originated but no-one in Norway uses the term "Minkehval". So whilst the name may now have become valid in daily english usage, it is still technically incorrect.
Minke Whale is still a misnomer based on the japanese "Minkku Kujira" chosen by conservationists because it sounds cuter than the correct "Lesser Rorqual".
When did the wrong name become right?
Every time this comes up I'm struck by the same few thoughts:
If we hadn't succumbed to the commercial desire to mine our real identities and instead had stayed with the early internet's pseudonymity culture, we'd be more able to isolate any online abuse from our real lives.
What happens online should stay online, but this now seems impossible.
The troll is an individual, who wields their (largely illusory) power through manipulative skill and sheer determination to annoy and frustrate. It seems unfair that the victim, also an approximately equal individual on the receiving end should be allowed such disproportionate means of retaliation. Is one against one so unfair?
I know, the world don't work like that, but it should.
Time & time again I experience this: I have a task, I look for a free opensource solution, I find one, only to discover that it's essentially bait for a commercial version, and it is nigh-on impossible to get it to work without coughing up for the pay version, which is almost always ridiculously overpriced, and to add insult to injury, the broken version is covered in ads for the commercial one.
I've wasted my time, the company will never get my money because they pissed me off with a broken "free" version which appears only to exist to satisfy the license of the source they based their product on, and is published in the most obfuscated and undocumented way they can get away with.
I'd be happy with something that worked with a given feature set, and offered more functionality for pay, I'd pay for that. This is not the same as figuring out how to cripple the most core feature in order to force people to buy...
I would have thought the obvious hack would be to grab card details or get free gas from self-service pumps. So far it just seems like mean pranks, not actual for-profit crime.
Does anyone else find it odd that a letter signed by the head of e-aircraft at Siemens to an aircraft company claims they're not expected to use it for flight??
Siemens claims they don't want their reputation risked by using the motor this way, and threaten to go to the press over it. Both UK & French authorities have signed off that they find the safety aspect acceptable.
I can't see how this can do anything but harm Siemens' reputation, and the sudden day-of-departure withdrawal of consent stinks a long way.
Some say Siemens is a very risk-averse & conservative company, and it is this that is driving their "better safe than sorry" attitude..
I still use the same "social" networks as I used pre-myspace, facebook, twitter et al. it's just that now they resemble ghost towns more than anything else.
It seems the concept that violence is a last resort has disappeared from policing.. Increasingly, even quiet, cooperative people are pinned down, handcuffed and manhandled as a matter of course. Violence has become one of the "perks" of policework, and the evil cycle of abuse and intimidation means fewer and fewer people object. Can anyone see any reason whatsoever for the violent treatment of this woman, who at worst is guilty of conspiracy to illegally export some telephones?
Well they had 3 days fuel to start with & 2x 24-hourly delivery contracts, so unless the emergency services were requisitioning the fuel at source, or the power outage lasted more than 3 days, and assuming that a single delivery could fill the tanks, only 1 delivery in 6 has to make it.
In a big disaster, fuel contracts mean very little - if the government decides that a hospital or police station (or the mayor's mistress's apartment building) needs the fuel more than you do, they will take it.
...Which is why they had *2* contracts for diesel delivery...
Hmm.. well if he was actually flying the plane I guess it might, dunno where they draw the line on that in a dual-control aircraft.
As a passenger, I believe centenary flights on concord were not uncommon...
As I understand it, the term "sound barrier" came about because hitting "compressibility limits" in ww2-era thick-winged aircraqft "felt like flying into a brick wall"...
Highest speed ever recorded in a piston-engined aircraft was mach 0.92 in a spitfire.. the pilot only survived because the propeller and reduction gear got ripped off the aircraft and the resulting shift in the center of gravity caused an 11g pullout of an otherwise fatal dive. apparently the wings were distinctly "swept" after the event.
Calling it a reenactment is just journalistic hyperbole..
As for the first to break the sound barrier, there are several contenders according to criteria.. Yaeger was the first to do it deliberately, measurably, in level flight, and survive. Geoffrey DeHavilland broke it in the DH108 but died in the process. The xf-86 prototype with George Welch almost certainly did it before him, but once again, in a barely-controlled dive. The same with all the other claims, they were not in control and they were lucky to survive, if they did.
The sole purpose of corporate logos is to be instantly recognizable and stimulate people to purchase.. in the terminology of the article, that is *exactly* the same as "burning it into the brain". Congratulations, we have ascertained that McDonalds marketing works, we never knew that before..
Slashdot Mirror
.. Should have a name.
Here's hoping for a successful re-launch.
Good.
Very interesting, I'm a native norwegian speaker with an interest in whaling history, and the minke theory jars with way whales have traditionally been named.
Generally, as you pointed out, the naming is practical and not derived from a person or event, thus right whale (Retthval) is the right one to catch, sperm whale has a head full of semen-like oil etc.
The story of the minke whale would make more sense if seen in this framework as in norwegian the word "minke" is a verb "to lessen or reduce" thus someone mistaking the lesser rorqual (vågehval, literally "daring whale" for it's impudent tendency to come into fjords within sight of the coastal whalers) for the right whale, which is a physically similar but much larger fin whale, might be ridiculed for how his whale had "shrunk"... The story is attributed to a diffuse member of Svend Foyn's crew, but this is roughly eqivalent to something being an Abe Lincoln quote, as Foyn was probably the most famous whaler that ever lived. (at least to the norwegians)
The choice of minke whale was one I came across during the 1992 "No Way Norway" Greenpeace anti-whaling campaign, where I raised the issue of nomenclature and the explanation was given that minke whale was a name that stuck more readily in people's minds and was more easily identifiable, containing the word "whale" and not the diminutive "lesser", also "minke" is cuter than "rorqual"
Mhe reason I say it is japanese is because afaik, (I don't speak japanese) minkku kujira is the official name in japanese.
So I may be wrong, but the idea is certainly not preposterous.
I believe you're sincere, AC, but the norwegian name for this whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) is "Vågehval" or more specifically "Sørlig Vågehval"
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I have no idea where the minke whale fallacy originated but no-one in Norway uses the term "Minkehval".
So whilst the name may now have become valid in daily english usage, it is still technically incorrect.
Minke Whale is still a misnomer based on the japanese "Minkku Kujira" chosen by conservationists because it sounds cuter than the correct "Lesser Rorqual".
When did the wrong name become right?
Every time this comes up I'm struck by the same few thoughts:
If we hadn't succumbed to the commercial desire to mine our real identities and instead had stayed with the early internet's pseudonymity culture, we'd be more able to isolate any online abuse from our real lives.
What happens online should stay online, but this now seems impossible.
The troll is an individual, who wields their (largely illusory) power through manipulative skill and sheer determination to annoy and frustrate. It seems unfair that the victim, also an approximately equal individual on the receiving end should be allowed such disproportionate means of retaliation. Is one against one so unfair?
I know, the world don't work like that, but it should.
Time & time again I experience this: I have a task, I look for a free opensource solution, I find one, only to discover that it's essentially bait for a commercial version, and it is nigh-on impossible to get it to work without coughing up for the pay version, which is almost always ridiculously overpriced, and to add insult to injury, the broken version is covered in ads for the commercial one.
I've wasted my time, the company will never get my money because they pissed me off with a broken "free" version which appears only to exist to satisfy the license of the source they based their product on, and is published in the most obfuscated and undocumented way they can get away with.
I'd be happy with something that worked with a given feature set, and offered more functionality for pay, I'd pay for that. This is not the same as figuring out how to cripple the most core feature in order to force people to buy...
This is not the opensource we were looking for.
I would have thought the obvious hack would be to grab card details or get free gas from self-service pumps. So far it just seems like mean pranks, not actual for-profit crime.
http://www.pipistrel.si/news/e...
Does anyone else find it odd that a letter signed by the head of e-aircraft at Siemens to an aircraft company claims they're not expected to use it for flight??
Siemens claims they don't want their reputation risked by using the motor this way, and threaten to go to the press over it.
Both UK & French authorities have signed off that they find the safety aspect acceptable.
I can't see how this can do anything but harm Siemens' reputation, and the sudden day-of-departure withdrawal of consent stinks a long way.
Some say Siemens is a very risk-averse & conservative company, and it is this that is driving their "better safe than sorry" attitude..
I don't buy it, and neither should you.
are now a step closer..
Could he come & cause $800,000 to my computer system too? I could use the upgrade...
I'd say what we actually lost was user base..
I still use the same "social" networks as I used pre-myspace, facebook, twitter et al. it's just that now they resemble ghost towns more than anything else.
It seems the concept that violence is a last resort has disappeared from policing.. Increasingly, even quiet, cooperative people are pinned down, handcuffed and manhandled as a matter of course. Violence has become one of the "perks" of policework, and the evil cycle of abuse and intimidation means fewer and fewer people object. Can anyone see any reason whatsoever for the violent treatment of this woman, who at worst is guilty of conspiracy to illegally export some telephones?
I clicked on this thinking it said "Laser Prototype Improves Bomb Detonation" and am disappointed..
I noticed that too.. ended up here looking for it.
He's just trying to boost the income of the domestic sex-shop sector.
Well they had 3 days fuel to start with & 2x 24-hourly delivery contracts, so unless the emergency services were requisitioning the fuel at source, or the power outage lasted more than 3 days, and assuming that a single delivery could fill the tanks, only 1 delivery in 6 has to make it.
In a big disaster, fuel contracts mean very little - if the government decides that a hospital or police station (or the mayor's mistress's apartment building) needs the fuel more than you do, they will take it.
...Which is why they had *2* contracts for diesel delivery...
Hmm.. well if he was actually flying the plane I guess it might, dunno where they draw the line on that in a dual-control aircraft. As a passenger, I believe centenary flights on concord were not uncommon...
As I understand it, the term "sound barrier" came about because hitting "compressibility limits" in ww2-era thick-winged aircraqft "felt like flying into a brick wall"...
Highest speed ever recorded in a piston-engined aircraft was mach 0.92 in a spitfire.. the pilot only survived because the propeller and reduction gear got ripped off the aircraft and the resulting shift in the center of gravity caused an 11g pullout of an otherwise fatal dive. apparently the wings were distinctly "swept" after the event.
Calling it a reenactment is just journalistic hyperbole.. As for the first to break the sound barrier, there are several contenders according to criteria.. Yaeger was the first to do it deliberately, measurably, in level flight, and survive. Geoffrey DeHavilland broke it in the DH108 but died in the process. The xf-86 prototype with George Welch almost certainly did it before him, but once again, in a barely-controlled dive. The same with all the other claims, they were not in control and they were lucky to survive, if they did.
The sole purpose of corporate logos is to be instantly recognizable and stimulate people to purchase.. in the terminology of the article, that is *exactly* the same as "burning it into the brain". Congratulations, we have ascertained that McDonalds marketing works, we never knew that before..