The Earth and the Moon also revolve around a common point, which is inside the Earth.
A perspective I've read on this is that our moon's orbit is everywhere concave with respect to the sun. So it's more accurate to interpret the Earth-Luna pair as not really orbiting each other, but rather sharing a solar orbit. Two bodies that are close together in the same orbit do swap places periodically; there are several known cases of this in the Jupiter and Saturn systems. From a rotating frame of reference, they appear to be orbiting each other. But viewed in a static frame, they appear to be swapping the lead periodically. So the Earth-Luna pair could be more accurately considered a binary planet pair in a common orbit.
It's all rather nitpicky anyway. As numerous astronomers have pointed out here, they mostly don't use such vague terms as "planet". And an orbit isn't really a property of the bodies in an orbit; it's a property of the system.
The "debate" is basically a media event, based on people who take their grade-school science classes too seriously, and think that for some reason that the Solar System must contain exactly nine "planets".
Hey, I used the caps-lock key several times yesterday. But I don't think I've ever used the Enter (not Return; Enter) key. If you want to repurpose a useless key, Enter should be the first candidate.
But then, nobody ever accused our "standard" keyboard of having a logical design.
Geneis is quite explicit that birds were separately created one day before land animals (aka dinosaurs).
Well, that's another disagreement with scientists, I guess. They have dinosaurs appearing first (180-200 million years ago), and birds branching off later (140-150 million years ago). The scientific dates do have a much bigger error bar than the biblical dates, of course, 20 million years vs. 1 day. But somehow I trust the scientific dates more. The scientists do have several independent dating methods that roughly agree; the bible has only the one date with no verifiable dating method.
[I]n a couple years the Very Light Jet (VLJ) market is supposed to take off and offer the kind of services you suggest on a level that an upper-middle-class American can afford, but not yet.
Actually, back in October and November of 2001, I remember reading and hearing articles (one on NPR) that were basically interviews with the makers of small jet planes and their air-taxi customers. The basic topic was the huge boost that the WTC attack had given to their business. One interview was with a rep of a company (I've forgotten which) that had just started selling a 6-seater for a price of $1 million, about half the cost of its main competitors. He said that they had new orders for 1000 of them.
The general gist was that such small jets, run as "charter" services, could provide flights for about twice the price of the commercial airlines, so if you had 3-6 people in your group, they were cheaper. Also, they could land at about 1500 airports in the US, compared to about 50 for the big airliners. And since they were charter flights, they didn't need to fuss with the usual security. The planes aren't attractive to terrorists. And with the new "security" being decreed at big airports, their door-to-door delivery time was typically about half what you could get from the big airlines.
I've seen a few followups claiming that much of the expansion of small air services like this has been slowly happening. It does take a bit more planning, of course, and it is more expensive if you're the only passenger. But I know a number of people using these air-taxi services for most of their business travel now. It's faster and cheaper (for 3 or more people) than the big airlines.
From the looks of that article, the market for small 10-seat passenger planes is now a booming business.
Stars, planets, and comets are fundamentally different objects, and identifying something as one of the three conveys useful information.
Actually, one of the problems is that Jupiter and Mercury are such fundamentally different objects that using a single term for both means that the term "planet" is not very meaningful. This is why scientists haven't developed a strict definition. Terms that general are mostly useful for informal speech; they have little value in technical discussions.
For another example, Mercury is more like Luna and Ganymede than it is like Earth. And Earth is more like Titan than it is like Mercury. Part of the problem here is that "orbits the sun" isn't a very useful property. If instead of Luna as Earth's orbital companion, we had a gas giant, it would make our night sky more spectacular. But wouldn't change the Earth at all, even though Earth would be a "moon" instead of a "planet".
All this is part of the earlier observations that this isn't a scientific question at all; it's a lay (and media) pseudo-controversy.
The only reason the IAU got involved is that the media (and/.) kept getting distracted by the issue, so it interferes with good science journalism.
I can show you museums that show kind, gentle dinosaurs living in harmony with man.
So can I. Consider that it's been a couple of decades now that birds were officially reclassified as a suborder of the dinosauria. We have four small parrots living in our house. One is actually perched on my wrist as I type this.
I suppose there might be some quibbling with that "in harmony" phrase. Parrot societies have about as much friction as human societies. Our two cockatiels tease the conure mercilessly. The conure tries to punish them, but she's nowhere near fast enough for them. And the parakeet can buzz all the rest without fear, which he does.
But they get along about as well as a set of four human siblings would.
I'd also guess that humans+birds is not what the creationists are talking about. I wonder if any of them recognize birds as dinosaurs? Probably not. After all, if God created each species separately, no two species are really related in the biological sense. Humans aren't related to chimps; domestic cats aren't related to lions or tigers; dogs aren't related to wolves or foxes. And there are no lessons to be learned by studying nature, because everything was a special creation, so medical researchers should stop using animals as models.
(And now there's a small, feathered dinosaur perched on my shoulder.;-)
When is [Colbert] going to take over John Stewart's slot?:)
I'd guess that he doesn't want to. He's still on the Daily Show, and he gets to do things there that wouldn't fit with his character on the Colbert Report. He'll probably continue to do both until he gets too busy and has to drop something. Even then, he'll probably still be an occasional guest commentator on the Daily Show.
Remember that Stewart and Colbert are both professional actors and commedians. They both want to avoid typecasting, and they want to play other parts occasionally. This must be getting difficult for them, now that they're so famous as fake news people.
I haven't seen the Daily Show in a couple of months, but that's because I don't watch much TV at all.
My wife and I terminated our cable service a couple years ago, after we realized that the only thing we'd watched in several months was the Daily Show, and we could find most of it as clips in various political blogs. So why keep paying for TV?
We did both like the surveys before the 2004 US elections, showing that people who watched the Daily Show were generally more able to correctly answer questions about the election than those who watched "real" news shows. This doesn't really say anything special about Stewart & Co, of course; it's mostly a damning comment on the state of US media coverage of politics.
Now if the commedycentral.com site worked better... (It's funny that the ads come across just fine, but the "content" is screwed up in most browsers most of the time.)
No-one who gets interviewed on the Colbert Report "actually thinks they're doing an interview".
You can see this clearly the recent interview with DC congresswoman Holmes Norton. I found that link by googling for "DC congresswoman"; it was the first match of many. It's pretty obvious that she understood Colbert's act, and did a pretty good job of playing along, giving as well as she got. Her supporters probably really enjoyed it, and she got some good publicity from it.
She's probably not the only politician who sees Colbert and Stewart interviews as good opportunities for public exposure, in a way that might look less like the PR job that most TV interviews turn into. A few are probably dumb enough to not understand that it's satire, but I'd bet that most do understand this. And sometimes, it turns out that they're not prepared to handle it well, which is even more fun.
I liked the interview recently where Colbert asked the guy to list the Ten Commandments. Who was that guy? He was definitely pro-Ten-Commandments, even if he couldn't say what they are.
Technically, only laymen bother classifying objects as 'planets'.
Good, point, and worth repeating whenever this bit of silliness comes up.
There was the suggestion a while back from that IAU committee to the effect that "planet" be only used with a qualifier. The term is used informally for anything big enough to be spheroidal and small enough to have no fusion occurring in its core. This covers such a wide range of objects that it's pointless to try to have a single term for them all. We really don't need a single technical term that includes both Jupiter and Pluto, especially if it excludes Ganymede and Titan.
The old point of orbiting a star is also not terribly useful, as it puts Earth and Mars in a different class that Titan and Triton (all four of which have atmospheres sufficiently dense for weather processes to happen).
Then there's the silly attempt to coin a name for planets out in space without a nearby star.
Astronomers should probably just declare that "planet" isn't a technical term, and it shouldn't be used at all. If that's too radical, the suggestion that it always requires a qualifier is a good compromise.
Actually, it's both. "Hungaria" is the Latin spelling, and it's spelled that way in a lot of old documents in most languages. English spelling often converts the -ia into -y, but you still see the -ia spellings in history texts. Thus "Germania" and "Italia" might be used to match the spelling of the era.
One puzzle is why in modern English we use -ia for some countries and -y for others. There seems to be no rational explanation for why we say Albania, Estonia, or Serbia while we say Germany, Hungary and Italy.
But then, nobody ever accused the English language of rational spelling or pronunciation.
(There's also the fun fact that Brittania and Brittany are different places. And Georgia is a different place than Georgia.;-)
I left my real IP above... so feel free to try an hack me:-P
OK:
: ping !$ ping 192.168.103.57 PING 192.168.103.57 (192.168.103.57): 56 data bytes ping: sendto: Host is down ping: sendto: Host is down ping: sendto: Host is down ping: sendto: Host is down ^C --- 192.168.103.57 ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss :
Hey, how can I hack your machine when it's down?;-)
Also I don't understand who would put this pressure on them unless it is the network card manufacturer. Macs, linux and windows machines are supposedly all affected so no one company would take a PR hit relative to others.
What??? I've seen a number of news articles on this, and every one of them has described it as a Mac vulnerability. Not one has mentioned that it effects Windows. (I did see one that mentioned that it also effected linux).
This/. discussion is the first I've read that mentions that it's independent of OS.
The obvious suspicion in my mind is that this is in fact an anti-Mac PR stunt. Until I read a reasonable explanation of why all those other reports describe it as a Mac security problem, I'll continue to suspect this.
(And I'm not even a Mac fanboy. I do have a Powerbook, but I have three linux and one FreeBSD boxes, and in almost every aspect, I find the Mac deficient. But I'm somewhat aware of the marketing issues.;-)
But I expect that most people would interpret "up to 15%" to mean that 15% is included. It's also possible that "up to 15%" could be interpreted to exclude negative savings.
There are lots of ambiguities in such things in common speech. Mathematicians define their terms precisely, but I'm not aware of any official mathematical definition of "up to". It's a marketing term, not technical jargon.
You want to see it stop? Find something that ties your local congressmen to their search histories on AOL. Contact them with that information.
But don't we want to read the dirt on our politicians?
Don't contact your congressperson with the information you've found about them. Send it to their competitors. There's an election coming up; they'll know what to do with it.
There have been a number of reports about problems cancelling AOL. An even funnier onne is the recent story about the difficulty of getting a dead guy off of AOL. A quick google for the keywords here, "Maxine Gauthier AOL", shows over 9000 hits, and most seem to be about this story.
The main character could read minds and he reads the mind of a bank security guard who is thinking about robbing the bank! He has the man investigated,...
This is really an example of a common failure in logic. If you were the least bit rational, you'd hope that the bank's security people are thinking about how to rob the bank. If not, they're incompetent and should be replaced with people who do think about obvious job-related problems.
Actually, I've seen this sort of failure in person. I've worked with a couple of software teams that were concerned with network security issues. So of course their searches included phrases related to security violations. This was noticed by the actual company network admins, whose job included spying on employees' outside network accesses. The developers repeatedly faced some pointed questioning by the security people, and basically just kept saying "We're trying to do our jobs." Eventually it would settle down and we'd be left to do our jobs. Then a few months later, the same thing would happen again.
I like how when things like this show up the rethuglicans always spin it as "oh, we didn't do anything bad. THEY do it too!".
My favorite comment on this line of reasoning was a Doonesbury carton a few years ago, where one character made this argument, and the other said "But when Democrats do it, they know it's wrong."
If you listen to them both, this does pretty well summarize the difference. The Republicans clearly don't know that they're doing anything wrong, and show no signs of shame when you point it out.
Of course, if you're on the receiving end of a bomb or unmaintained levee or whatever, you might be excused for not caring much about such moral niceties.
Yeah; that'll probably be the most common comment from anyone who looks at them. Except for those that know a little Greek, who'll most say "WTF is this???"
Then they'll look a bit closer, and after a while, say "Hey I see a Greek word there!"
...how can anyone really get a feel for the importance of this discovery if they don't post some of the translated texts?
Hey, they're posting the scanned text online as rather large images. It's an Open Source project. So pick a page and start translating it. I'm sure they'll appreciate the help. And having several of us do the same page will help; they can compare the translations, consult with other experts on classical Greek, and produce a well-annotated translation much faster than a handful of academics would manage.
Yeah, but it's gonna take those/. readers more than 12 hours to decode one of those pages, even those of us that are fluent readers of classical Greek. Did you take a look at them? I mean, I did manage to pick out a couple of recognizable words. But I can hardly imagine how much work it'll still take to get proper transcriptions and translations of them all.
Heh; sorry, but commercial hype and scam artists are the future of any comm system we build. At least until we get AI that's good enough to recognize them and distract them.
Slashdot Mirror
The Earth and the Moon also revolve around a common point, which is inside the Earth.
A perspective I've read on this is that our moon's orbit is everywhere concave with respect to the sun. So it's more accurate to interpret the Earth-Luna pair as not really orbiting each other, but rather sharing a solar orbit. Two bodies that are close together in the same orbit do swap places periodically; there are several known cases of this in the Jupiter and Saturn systems. From a rotating frame of reference, they appear to be orbiting each other. But viewed in a static frame, they appear to be swapping the lead periodically. So the Earth-Luna pair could be more accurately considered a binary planet pair in a common orbit.
It's all rather nitpicky anyway. As numerous astronomers have pointed out here, they mostly don't use such vague terms as "planet". And an orbit isn't really a property of the bodies in an orbit; it's a property of the system.
The "debate" is basically a media event, based on people who take their grade-school science classes too seriously, and think that for some reason that the Solar System must contain exactly nine "planets".
Hey, I used the caps-lock key several times yesterday. But I don't think I've ever used the Enter (not Return; Enter) key. If you want to repurpose a useless key, Enter should be the first candidate.
But then, nobody ever accused our "standard" keyboard of having a logical design.
Geneis is quite explicit that birds were separately created one day before land animals (aka dinosaurs).
Well, that's another disagreement with scientists, I guess. They have dinosaurs appearing first (180-200 million years ago), and birds branching off later (140-150 million years ago). The scientific dates do have a much bigger error bar than the biblical dates, of course, 20 million years vs. 1 day. But somehow I trust the scientific dates more. The scientists do have several independent dating methods that roughly agree; the bible has only the one date with no verifiable dating method.
[I]n a couple years the Very Light Jet (VLJ) market is supposed to take off and offer the kind of services you suggest on a level that an upper-middle-class American can afford, but not yet.
Actually, back in October and November of 2001, I remember reading and hearing articles (one on NPR) that were basically interviews with the makers of small jet planes and their air-taxi customers. The basic topic was the huge boost that the WTC attack had given to their business. One interview was with a rep of a company (I've forgotten which) that had just started selling a 6-seater for a price of $1 million, about half the cost of its main competitors. He said that they had new orders for 1000 of them.
The general gist was that such small jets, run as "charter" services, could provide flights for about twice the price of the commercial airlines, so if you had 3-6 people in your group, they were cheaper. Also, they could land at about 1500 airports in the US, compared to about 50 for the big airliners. And since they were charter flights, they didn't need to fuss with the usual security. The planes aren't attractive to terrorists. And with the new "security" being decreed at big airports, their door-to-door delivery time was typically about half what you could get from the big airlines.
I've seen a few followups claiming that much of the expansion of small air services like this has been slowly happening. It does take a bit more planning, of course, and it is more expensive if you're the only passenger. But I know a number of people using these air-taxi services for most of their business travel now. It's faster and cheaper (for 3 or more people) than the big airlines.
From the looks of that article, the market for small 10-seat passenger planes is now a booming business.
Stars, planets, and comets are fundamentally different objects, and identifying something as one of the three conveys useful information.
/.) kept getting distracted by the issue, so it interferes with good science journalism.
Actually, one of the problems is that Jupiter and Mercury are such fundamentally different objects that using a single term for both means that the term "planet" is not very meaningful. This is why scientists haven't developed a strict definition. Terms that general are mostly useful for informal speech; they have little value in technical discussions.
For another example, Mercury is more like Luna and Ganymede than it is like Earth. And Earth is more like Titan than it is like Mercury. Part of the problem here is that "orbits the sun" isn't a very useful property. If instead of Luna as Earth's orbital companion, we had a gas giant, it would make our night sky more spectacular. But wouldn't change the Earth at all, even though Earth would be a "moon" instead of a "planet".
All this is part of the earlier observations that this isn't a scientific question at all; it's a lay (and media) pseudo-controversy.
The only reason the IAU got involved is that the media (and
I can show you museums that show kind, gentle dinosaurs living in harmony with man.
;-)
So can I. Consider that it's been a couple of decades now that birds were officially reclassified as a suborder of the dinosauria. We have four small parrots living in our house. One is actually perched on my wrist as I type this.
I suppose there might be some quibbling with that "in harmony" phrase. Parrot societies have about as much friction as human societies. Our two cockatiels tease the conure mercilessly. The conure tries to punish them, but she's nowhere near fast enough for them. And the parakeet can buzz all the rest without fear, which he does.
But they get along about as well as a set of four human siblings would.
I'd also guess that humans+birds is not what the creationists are talking about. I wonder if any of them recognize birds as dinosaurs? Probably not. After all, if God created each species separately, no two species are really related in the biological sense. Humans aren't related to chimps; domestic cats aren't related to lions or tigers; dogs aren't related to wolves or foxes. And there are no lessons to be learned by studying nature, because everything was a special creation, so medical researchers should stop using animals as models.
(And now there's a small, feathered dinosaur perched on my shoulder.
When is [Colbert] going to take over John Stewart's slot? :)
I'd guess that he doesn't want to. He's still on the Daily Show, and he gets to do things there that wouldn't fit with his character on the Colbert Report. He'll probably continue to do both until he gets too busy and has to drop something. Even then, he'll probably still be an occasional guest commentator on the Daily Show.
Remember that Stewart and Colbert are both professional actors and commedians. They both want to avoid typecasting, and they want to play other parts occasionally. This must be getting difficult for them, now that they're so famous as fake news people.
I haven't seen the Daily Show in a couple of months, but that's because I don't watch much TV at all.
... (It's funny that the ads come across just fine, but the "content" is screwed up in most browsers most of the time.)
My wife and I terminated our cable service a couple years ago, after we realized that the only thing we'd watched in several months was the Daily Show, and we could find most of it as clips in various political blogs. So why keep paying for TV?
We did both like the surveys before the 2004 US elections, showing that people who watched the Daily Show were generally more able to correctly answer questions about the election than those who watched "real" news shows. This doesn't really say anything special about Stewart & Co, of course; it's mostly a damning comment on the state of US media coverage of politics.
Now if the commedycentral.com site worked better
No-one who gets interviewed on the Colbert Report "actually thinks they're doing an interview".
You can see this clearly the recent interview with DC congresswoman Holmes Norton. I found that link by googling for "DC congresswoman"; it was the first match of many. It's pretty obvious that she understood Colbert's act, and did a pretty good job of playing along, giving as well as she got. Her supporters probably really enjoyed it, and she got some good publicity from it.
She's probably not the only politician who sees Colbert and Stewart interviews as good opportunities for public exposure, in a way that might look less like the PR job that most TV interviews turn into. A few are probably dumb enough to not understand that it's satire, but I'd bet that most do understand this. And sometimes, it turns out that they're not prepared to handle it well, which is even more fun.
I liked the interview recently where Colbert asked the guy to list the Ten Commandments. Who was that guy? He was definitely pro-Ten-Commandments, even if he couldn't say what they are.
Technically, only laymen bother classifying objects as 'planets'.
Good, point, and worth repeating whenever this bit of silliness comes up.
There was the suggestion a while back from that IAU committee to the effect that "planet" be only used with a qualifier. The term is used informally for anything big enough to be spheroidal and small enough to have no fusion occurring in its core. This covers such a wide range of objects that it's pointless to try to have a single term for them all. We really don't need a single technical term that includes both Jupiter and Pluto, especially if it excludes Ganymede and Titan.
The old point of orbiting a star is also not terribly useful, as it puts Earth and Mars in a different class that Titan and Triton (all four of which have atmospheres sufficiently dense for weather processes to happen).
Then there's the silly attempt to coin a name for planets out in space without a nearby star.
Astronomers should probably just declare that "planet" isn't a technical term, and it shouldn't be used at all. If that's too radical, the suggestion that it always requires a qualifier is a good compromise.
Actually, it's both. "Hungaria" is the Latin spelling, and it's spelled that way in a lot of old documents in most languages. English spelling often converts the -ia into -y, but you still see the -ia spellings in history texts. Thus "Germania" and "Italia" might be used to match the spelling of the era.
;-)
One puzzle is why in modern English we use -ia for some countries and -y for others. There seems to be no rational explanation for why we say Albania, Estonia, or Serbia while we say Germany, Hungary and Italy.
But then, nobody ever accused the English language of rational spelling or pronunciation.
(There's also the fun fact that Brittania and Brittany are different places. And Georgia is a different place than Georgia.
OK:
Hey, how can I hack your machine when it's down?
(Musta been slashdotted
Yeah. And you have to ask yourself, when you read that AOL still has 17 million subscribers, how many of those are dead?
Also I don't understand who would put this pressure on them unless it is the network card manufacturer. Macs, linux and windows machines are supposedly all affected so no one company would take a PR hit relative to others.
/. discussion is the first I've read that mentions that it's independent of OS.
;-)
What??? I've seen a number of news articles on this, and every one of them has described it as a Mac vulnerability. Not one has mentioned that it effects Windows. (I did see one that mentioned that it also effected linux).
This
The obvious suspicion in my mind is that this is in fact an anti-Mac PR stunt. Until I read a reasonable explanation of why all those other reports describe it as a Mac security problem, I'll continue to suspect this.
(And I'm not even a Mac fanboy. I do have a Powerbook, but I have three linux and one FreeBSD boxes, and in almost every aspect, I find the Mac deficient. But I'm somewhat aware of the marketing issues.
Yeah, maybe, so it'd be 14.999% or 15.001%.
But I expect that most people would interpret "up to 15%" to mean that 15% is included. It's also possible that "up to 15%" could be interpreted to exclude negative savings.
There are lots of ambiguities in such things in common speech. Mathematicians define their terms precisely, but I'm not aware of any official mathematical definition of "up to". It's a marketing term, not technical jargon.
You want to see it stop? Find something that ties your local congressmen to their search histories on AOL. Contact them with that information.
But don't we want to read the dirt on our politicians?
Don't contact your congressperson with the information you've found about them. Send it to their competitors. There's an election coming up; they'll know what to do with it.
There have been a number of reports about problems cancelling AOL. An even funnier onne is the recent story about the difficulty of getting a dead guy off of AOL. A quick google for the keywords here, "Maxine Gauthier AOL", shows over 9000 hits, and most seem to be about this story.
The main character could read minds and he reads the mind of a bank security guard who is thinking about robbing the bank! He has the man investigated, ...
This is really an example of a common failure in logic. If you were the least bit rational, you'd hope that the bank's security people are thinking about how to rob the bank. If not, they're incompetent and should be replaced with people who do think about obvious job-related problems.
Actually, I've seen this sort of failure in person. I've worked with a couple of software teams that were concerned with network security issues. So of course their searches included phrases related to security violations. This was noticed by the actual company network admins, whose job included spying on employees' outside network accesses. The developers repeatedly faced some pointed questioning by the security people, and basically just kept saying "We're trying to do our jobs." Eventually it would settle down and we'd be left to do our jobs. Then a few months later, the same thing would happen again.
Well, you can look at it one of two ways: User 17556639 is a diseased member of society or User 17556639 is a coroner doing research.
My first reaction was that user 17556639 is a game developer looking for ideas and models for images. In other words, truly 3\/1|_.
... those claims of saving "up to 15 percent or more".
That pretty much covers the entire range of possibilities.
I often wonder why they didn't say something like "up to 50 percent or more" or "up to 99 percent or more". Those would be every bit as meaningful.
I like how when things like this show up the rethuglicans always spin it as "oh, we didn't do anything bad. THEY do it too!".
My favorite comment on this line of reasoning was a Doonesbury carton a few years ago, where one character made this argument, and the other said "But when Democrats do it, they know it's wrong."
If you listen to them both, this does pretty well summarize the difference. The Republicans clearly don't know that they're doing anything wrong, and show no signs of shame when you point it out.
Of course, if you're on the receiving end of a bomb or unmaintained levee or whatever, you might be excused for not caring much about such moral niceties.
Yeah; that'll probably be the most common comment from anyone who looks at them. Except for those that know a little Greek, who'll most say "WTF is this???"
Then they'll look a bit closer, and after a while, say "Hey I see a Greek word there!"
...how can anyone really get a feel for the importance of this discovery if they don't post some of the translated texts?
...
Hey, they're posting the scanned text online as rather large images. It's an Open Source project. So pick a page and start translating it. I'm sure they'll appreciate the help. And having several of us do the same page will help; they can compare the translations, consult with other experts on classical Greek, and produce a well-annotated translation much faster than a handful of academics would manage.
Don't just complain; contribute to the effort
Yeah, but it's gonna take those /. readers more than 12 hours to decode one of those pages, even those of us that are fluent readers of classical Greek. Did you take a look at them? I mean, I did manage to pick out a couple of recognizable words. But I can hardly imagine how much work it'll still take to get proper transcriptions and translations of them all.
Heh; sorry, but commercial hype and scam artists are the future of any comm system we build. At least until we get AI that's good enough to recognize them and distract them.