1. If someone ignores crackpot-mind, then one's ignoring declares that one won't deal with either them, or with their information, and that suggests that there are reasons for non-dealing-with...
2. If someone replies to a crackpot, then one's action holds that the crackpot is correct-enough/valid-enough to consider equal/valid, and then wrestles primarily with them ( can't win with anyone who doesn't accept scientific method, though... ), and secondarily with their information...
3. If someone sees disinformation-love ( crackpot-determination ), and increases the correctness of one's action/work/commitment/integrity/knowledge so that integrity becomes intrinsic/open, so that one's meaning becomes non-weak, so that one counters the disinformation,.. and crackpot-jutsu becomes unable to get leverage against one... ... then that holds only that crackpot-intention is part of context, and that one hasn't been correct/open-enough in integrity to counter its 'information' ( thus far ), but one isn't holding the disinformation-loving-one's believing to be correct-enough... ... to claim one's action, or awareness, or determination, or time...
" is based on proofs that are absolutely certain. " ... And self-consistent,.. but not reality-complete...
( Godel's theory of incompleteness proves that to know the 'truth' of a self-consistent system, one has to check it against something outside that system )
No, actually, a 'professional product reviewer' is given all the products they review, and they keep them ( or sell them on eBay, a major source of income, that, for a 'top' reviewer... ).
Therefore, if they write negative reviews, they don't get more stuff, so they have to write positive reviews to remain 'in the goods'
It's simply a matter of paying the 'reviewer' by giving them the products, and having them understand that their 'gifts' are dependent on positive reviews, is all...
My favourite feature of the epinions.com site is that one can quickly see the top-rated items in a category, and then go and glance at the 'cons' section of each review of the interesting ones, and therefore quickly know-about anything that would clobber one's intended use for the thing...
If I care about rapid-fire photography.. and particular good-rated cameras have no capability to do it.. probably that non-capability will be noted in one of the reviews 'cons' section, and.. then I know ( having not had to trust a single+solitary reviewer or a 'review'-site )...
Particularly important when amazon.com seems to be interested in suppressing non-favourable reviews.. to make sure that the market doesn't choose objectively, eh?
( yes I know that permitting correct perception damages established entity's profits, and yes I know that that is 'evil' to market/economist types, but human-real worth is worth more to me than monetary appearances are )
Also, the reviews on epinions give me the 'gotchas' to look out for, so I understand the requirements ( for a given kind-of-item ) better!
Many thanks to everyone who makes public valid reviews, because without such we ( or 'the market'... ) cannot evolve, but rather would only devolve, as marketing displaced, totally, vital perception.
And, obviously, it doesn't make business-sense to permit objectivity, accuracy-that-harms-our-marketshare, or any other profit-suppressive activity, these activities must be suppressed.. and of course the NAFTA/GATT laws permit not just the suppression of independent objective information given by individuals, but also the suppression of laws that protect objective information as a right...
We make the world we want, so what's the consequences? Live in it.
However, I think the Unisolar flexible "panels" are the best plan, and they can put out one hell of a wollop, for a "tie it to the backpack so charging's going on while we're walking" solution...
Note that the middle-sized one will wrap 'round a backpack nicely, and it's got the internal diodes so it doesn't matter if it's partially shaded ( like by one's sleeping-roll, or something )...
Dig these people: they've got 'em, and prices, too - $148 for the 11-watt version! ( that's the middle one, I'd mentioned )...
http://www.e-marine-inc.com/products/solar_panels/ flex.html
*sigh*
Brunton are professional dolts:
Their site requires scripting, or you can't navigate the thing sanely, and
their little rigid solar-panels are aimed at the yuppie crowd ( rigid, corporate dinky-toy look, anemic ), and
they appear to not bother keeping up with the ones who really innovate...
http://www.brunton.com/catalog.php
Knowledge, in the sense intended, means "wisdom", not facts.
There is difference.
The substance of realization is immeasureable-compassion, and the means of realization is wisdom. Facts are just objects that attach one's mind to matter and ignosises.
karma and/. "karma" aren't identical: karma is cause-and-effect law, in mind rather than Newtonian mindless matter.
Eastern understanding is, to our culture's prejudice, beneath dirt, but is oft eleganter than everything we've come up with, and oft enough declares quantum stuff ( see
Alexandra David-Neel and Lama Yongden's "Secret Oral Teachings in Tibetan Buddhist Sects"
CityLights.com where the discreteness of "quantum" reality is outright declared, but ignored by us... ).
Replace "uninformed free market" with "uninformed led market", eh?
"Free" requires perception/awareness/self-determination, ergo uninformed means non-free.
I don't buy that anyone can make any system/market/society free, but making it not non-free, oughta be easier ( crash and jam the special-interest-groups, corporate or otherwise, established-or-otherwise, from owning world: rig the rules for independence of meaning and worth and include, rather than push, as legal-principles ). Freedom still requires vital energy of the beings who're being free.
A more useful definition of "universe" is "the four-dimensional
space-time manifold within which everything observable to human beings
exists".
<sigh>
Try "the multi-dimensional ( including non-locality-or-Mind/Time/Space ) manifold within-which one reasonably consistent set of laws-of-physics resides", morelike.
If the Tibetan Buddhist maintain that there are 7 hidden dimensions ( can hold mind, cannot hold matter ), and the Toltecs independently discovered the same conclusion, and M-Theory came to approximately the same conclusion ( ~ at least 7, possibly more, hidden spacial dimensions ), then I'm betting that there actually are 7 or more hidden spacial dimensions.
Betting otherwise, after 3 absolutely-alien-to-each-other sciences perceived the same essence-structure, is, to me, prejudice only.
If Scientism holds that mind isn't in Universe ( and subject to laws-of-physics ) while maintaining that non-locality and entanglement are universal realities, that's hipocrisy ( so is "Scientism Knows that Knowing cannot exist: Therefore Scientism's Knowing is Right and all other Knowing is false, because Scientism is the only Authority" style reasoning ), and
Multiverse ( fer me ) means each Universe is its own 'bubble', no one of 'em making all/any other(s) non-exist, each 'bubble' having its own laws-of-physics.
My understanding is that there are 3 major dimensions, and numerous minor dimensions: Mind/Time/Space being the majors, Mind being broken down into 3 relatively-major and open subdimensions ( Toltec: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd attentions; Buddhist: gross-mind, subtle-mind, very-subtle-mind; Western: ego, deep-mind, soul ), Time maybe having one dimension, or maybe more, and Space having 3 relatively-major and open dimensions ( x/y/z ).
The near-symmetry between space and mind are so elegant:
the Tibetan Buddhists and Toltecs hold that there are 7 hidden spacial dimensions, and the Tibetan Buddhists hold that there are 7 structures ( central-channel-wheels, or chakras ) of an autonomous-enough-to-realize mind. Interesting match with the 7 hidden spacial-dimensions that M-Theory apparently requires...
Why are there such symmetries?
The Magic Dismissal "Mere Coincidence" don't cut it for me, eh?
How about the Buddhist depiction of invariance ( 2000 or 2500 years before Einstein )?
If infinite-wisdom-mind is concentrating right there, and the observer is wisdom-nature contemplation, then the infinite-wisdom-mind one sees is red-shifted, being both orange-skinned and infinitely tranquil ( Manjushri ). If infinite-wisdom-mind is concentrating right there and the observer is ignorance-nature, then infinite-wisdom-mind one sees is blue-shifted, both blue-skinned and blazing violence and annihilation. Same infinite-wisdom-mind, different appearance, due to the mind of the observer, and the/red/-shift and/blue/-shift is right there in the t'anka paintings of 2?00 years ago.
So if Buddhism depicted our speed as invariant, between Mind and Time, and Einstein depicted it as invariant, between Time and Space, why is it assumed that only Time and Space can be actual and real?
Cripes, Ninja have seen mild versions of this same invariance, in their training, and I've seen the same strange apparent-difference-in-time-speed with a few ultra-total competitors...
Whatever: concertedly ignoring evidence because it doesn't amplify one's assumptions'-position/importance within a cultural prejudice strikes me as doltish, and If Universe includes mind ( that we discuss indicates it does, for all except behaviourists ), then Universe is elegant indeed, and solving-one's-way-out makes sense to me...
Why do I offer stuff that doesn't assume as Standard Prejudice does?
Because I feel that everyone's autonomy is worth something, and the sciences that discovered invariance between Mind and Time are sciences of Mind. If they work, get results, are effective, then why not honestly try 'em rather than just mechanistically not doing so for habit's sake? Is habit worth more than my or your meaning or understanding?
No law prevents a business to have a distributed corporate hierarchy across state lines.
Actually, I read about one big ERP ( IIRC ) company having to choose some specific place as their corporate HQ -- they'd run a hierarchy-on-demand system with no HQ, but that wasn't acceptable to the IRS.
'read that in "Corps Business: the 30 Management Principles of the US Marines" ( David H Freedman, and it's an excellent book )
How will Freenet and GNUnet _share_ the World. . .
on
Freenet 0.5 Released
·
· Score: 1
. . no pun intended . . : P
Just wondering, because it seems inevitable to me that Freenet and GNUnet are going to be the only place left in the world where independent idea publishing can be, a short few years from now.
How will their differences in design/engineering change their 'base', or
otherly phrased, what portions of our idea-world will live freely in each 'net'?
No, that was the urban myth that cropped up, but the author specifically stated that that wasn't the origin of it.
And was damned annoyed that that bogon wouldn't die.
But, from waayyy back when, when the movie first came out, I remember that HAL stood for Holographic Algorithm ( or Algorithmic ) Logic, and the weird thing is, I wasn't old enough to have ever heard the term Algorithm ( that I know of ), from/for any other source/reason, back in the early '70s.
- - Yes I know this is a bit off-topic, but please, if information, concisely given, puts out one more damned urban myth
( which are deeply worse than merely off-topic -- they pull us all wrong: holding our minds on wrong knowing ),
then let us simply see it.
That was the opinion of NewScientist magazine, but shortly before the actual date, something happened in Australia that changed their mind ( it was in an editorial, IIRC, not in the online version -- the mag really is worth it ).
What changed their mind, is that some smelting operation ( again, IIRC ) destroyed itself automatically, when the computers that poured fuel ( coal? ) into the furnaces kept doing so, while the computers that poured ore into the system stopped doing so, because Feb 29th didn't, according to them, exist.
Autodestruct, though not quite HAL-style ( as an aside, didn't HAL stand for Holographic Algorithmic Logic? -- remember the clear blocks they used as HAL's units in the computer-room, too )
Sudden, Colossally Expensive equipment damage, but no lives lost.
Had that happened in one model of autopilot. ..
And yes, I remember some city administration stating that they'd done a 'dry run' of rollover, and discovered that the basic infrastructure didn't work ( water was one item specifically mentioned, though I don't remember if it was treatment or what ).
Of course, 'no disaster that had been about-to-be-caused by this code that we discovered to be non-correct didn't happen' . . isn't front-page news.
I know for fact, that some federal gov't contracters were writing NON-Y2K compliant code in 1998 ( either being committedly braindead, or hoping that the re-write contracts would pay extravagantly when the social-insurance system broke on-the-day ).
The English/Imperial system based the gallon on 10 lbs. of water, so it was simply based.
1 pound == 454g,
1 imp. gallon == 10x 1 pound == 10x454g == 4.54Kg, or
( with water ) 4.54 litres.
Hence the standard ( not US ) gallon being 4.5 litres.
Where { 3.8 litres == 1 gallon } American 'gallons' came from, I don't know. ..
...when NASA did half its calculation in metric and the rest in SI.;)
Note the winking smiley in that. Yes, they probably actually knew that Systiéme Internationale == Metric With A French Accént.
And Yes, I know it hasn't been updated in awhile ( May, actually, from the timestamps in the tarball, referring to the beta version ), but maybe they don't feel need to update it for their purposes anymore. ..
Sodium et al is packed in oil. If one removes an oil-packed, oil-soaked hunk of sodium from a jar/bottle, and drops it onto a lake, the oil won't acquire Spontaneous Disappearance just because you did so, eh?
If it is packed in a light oil it'll get compromised quickly, if packed in a heavier one, then slower, right?
I don't consider the story about dumping oil-coated sodium on a lake and having time to get to shore before - BAM - to be < ahem > "male cow" excrement.
Correct Scanning: double-entry method.
on
Accurate OCR?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Get 2 different OCR-engine programs
Scan the same text in - to plain text - with program 1, scan it in to a second plain-text file with OCR program 2, and 'diff' 'em, ignoring white-space.
That means the indifidual person running the scanning doesn't have anywhere near the amount of work to do.
Small erors may get through, but it is drastically fast, in comparison with the way it normally is done, eh?
Stephen J. Gould recognized only 3 kingdoms:
Archaeia ( spelling there? ), or primitive/original bacteria
Bacteria ( the normal ones, not the 130C eats-bedrock-and-steam variety ), and
Everything Else
He based this on genetics/cladistics ( dividing species by genetics, rather than by appearance: putting rabbits in with primates rather than rodents, ferinstance )
I say the evidence is correct, no matter what Established Knowledge say about the pattern of reality.
Also, it's been discovered recently that fungi are closer to animals than to plants, genetically ( sorta explains slime-molds, eh? - plants aren't usually that ambulatory, trifids excepted )
Nonsense. In America, we don't have classes... in the sense of hereditary social strata. Take a look at the backgrounds of most corporate higher-ups and you will not find people born with a silver spoon in their mouths. Social mobility, which is very strong in America especially, gives lie to the term "classes."
Slashdot Mirror
1. If someone ignores crackpot-mind, then one's ignoring declares that one won't deal with either them, or with their information, and that suggests that there are reasons for non-dealing-with...
2. If someone replies to a crackpot, then one's action holds that the crackpot is correct-enough/valid-enough to consider equal/valid, and then wrestles primarily with them ( can't win with anyone who doesn't accept scientific method, though... ), and secondarily with their information...
3. If someone sees disinformation-love ( crackpot-determination ), and increases the correctness of one's action/work/commitment/integrity/knowledge so that integrity becomes intrinsic/open, so that one's meaning becomes non-weak, so that one counters the disinformation, .. and crackpot-jutsu becomes unable to get leverage against one ...
... then that holds only that crackpot-intention is part of context, and that one hasn't been correct/open-enough in integrity to counter its 'information' ( thus far ), but one isn't holding the disinformation-loving-one's believing to be correct-enough...
... to claim one's action, or awareness, or determination, or time...
Mod that up, please, Win4Lin's faster than VMWare, isn't owned by the soviet imperial microsoft, and costs less, too.
" is based on proofs that are absolutely certain. "
... And self-consistent, .. but not reality-complete...
( Godel's theory of incompleteness proves that to know the 'truth' of a self-consistent system, one has to check it against something outside that system )
No, actually, a 'professional product reviewer' is given all the products they review, and they keep them ( or sell them on eBay, a major source of income, that, for a 'top' reviewer... ).
Therefore, if they write negative reviews, they don't get more stuff, so they have to write positive reviews to remain 'in the goods'
It's simply a matter of paying the 'reviewer' by giving them the products, and having them understand that their 'gifts' are dependent on positive reviews, is all...
My favourite feature of the epinions.com site is that one can quickly see the top-rated items in a category, and then go and glance at the 'cons' section of each review of the interesting ones, and therefore quickly know-about anything that would clobber one's intended use for the thing...
If I care about rapid-fire photography .. and particular good-rated cameras have no capability to do it .. probably that non-capability will be noted in one of the reviews 'cons' section, and .. then I know ( having not had to trust a single+solitary reviewer or a 'review'-site )... .. to make sure that the market doesn't choose objectively, eh?
Particularly important when amazon.com seems to be interested in suppressing non-favourable reviews
( yes I know that permitting correct perception damages established entity's profits, and yes I know that that is 'evil' to market/economist types, but human-real worth is worth more to me than monetary appearances are )
Also, the reviews on epinions give me the 'gotchas' to look out for, so I understand the requirements ( for a given kind-of-item ) better! ... ) cannot evolve, but rather would only devolve, as marketing displaced, totally, vital perception.
Many thanks to everyone who makes public valid reviews, because without such we ( or 'the market'
I question your use of the term 'nearly'.
And, obviously, it doesn't make business-sense to permit objectivity, accuracy-that-harms-our-marketshare, or any other profit-suppressive activity, these activities must be suppressed .. and of course the NAFTA/GATT laws permit not just the suppression of independent objective information given by individuals, but also the suppression of laws that protect objective information as a right...
We make the world we want, so what's the consequences? Live in it.
Commit the world/reality one really means.
This may seem obvious, too...
http://www.budgetweb.com/budgetweb/index.html
Man, it's BRUNTON, not Burton...
Here's a page with a listing of 'em...
http://www.egeology.com/brunsolpow.html
However, I think the Unisolar flexible "panels" are the best plan, and they can put out one hell of a wollop, for a "tie it to the backpack so charging's going on while we're walking" solution.../ flex.html
Note that the middle-sized one will wrap 'round a backpack nicely, and it's got the internal diodes so it doesn't matter if it's partially shaded ( like by one's sleeping-roll, or something )...
Dig these people: they've got 'em, and prices, too - $148 for the 11-watt version! ( that's the middle one, I'd mentioned )...
http://www.e-marine-inc.com/products/solar_panels
*sigh*
Brunton are professional dolts:
Their site requires scripting, or you can't navigate the thing sanely, and
their little rigid solar-panels are aimed at the yuppie crowd ( rigid, corporate dinky-toy look, anemic ), and
they appear to not bother keeping up with the ones who really innovate...
http://www.brunton.com/catalog.php
Enjoy the possibilities
Directory.Google/Comp/Softw/Inet/SiteMgt/Backup/Knowledge, in the sense intended, means "wisdom", not facts.
There is difference.
The substance of realization is immeasureable-compassion, and the means of realization is wisdom. Facts are just objects that attach one's mind to matter and ignosises.
karma and /. "karma" aren't identical: karma is cause-and-effect law, in mind rather than Newtonian mindless matter.
Eastern understanding is, to our culture's prejudice, beneath dirt, but is oft eleganter than everything we've come up with, and oft enough declares quantum stuff ( see Alexandra David-Neel and Lama Yongden's "Secret Oral Teachings in Tibetan Buddhist Sects" CityLights.com where the discreteness of "quantum" reality is outright declared, but ignored by us... ).
Replace "uninformed free market" with "uninformed led market", eh?
"Free" requires perception/awareness/self-determination, ergo uninformed means non-free.
I don't buy that anyone can make any system/market/society free, but making it not non-free, oughta be easier ( crash and jam the special-interest-groups, corporate or otherwise, established-or-otherwise, from owning world: rig the rules for independence of meaning and worth and include, rather than push, as legal-principles ). Freedom still requires vital energy of the beings who're being free.
<sigh>
Try "the multi-dimensional ( including non-locality-or-Mind/Time/Space ) manifold within-which one reasonably consistent set of laws-of-physics resides", morelike.
If the Tibetan Buddhist maintain that there are 7 hidden dimensions ( can hold mind, cannot hold matter ), and the Toltecs independently discovered the same conclusion, and M-Theory came to approximately the same conclusion ( ~ at least 7, possibly more, hidden spacial dimensions ), then I'm betting that there actually are 7 or more hidden spacial dimensions.
Betting otherwise, after 3 absolutely-alien-to-each-other sciences perceived the same essence-structure, is, to me, prejudice only.
If Scientism holds that mind isn't in Universe ( and subject to laws-of-physics ) while maintaining that non-locality and entanglement are universal realities, that's hipocrisy ( so is "Scientism Knows that Knowing cannot exist: Therefore Scientism's Knowing is Right and all other Knowing is false, because Scientism is the only Authority" style reasoning ), and
Multiverse ( fer me ) means each Universe is its own 'bubble', no one of 'em making all/any other(s) non-exist, each 'bubble' having its own laws-of-physics.
My understanding is that there are 3 major dimensions, and numerous minor dimensions: Mind/Time/Space being the majors, Mind being broken down into 3 relatively-major and open subdimensions ( Toltec: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd attentions; Buddhist: gross-mind, subtle-mind, very-subtle-mind; Western: ego, deep-mind, soul ), Time maybe having one dimension, or maybe more, and Space having 3 relatively-major and open dimensions ( x/y/z ).
The near-symmetry between space and mind are so elegant: the Tibetan Buddhists and Toltecs hold that there are 7 hidden spacial dimensions, and the Tibetan Buddhists hold that there are 7 structures ( central-channel-wheels, or chakras ) of an autonomous-enough-to-realize mind. Interesting match with the 7 hidden spacial-dimensions that M-Theory apparently requires...
Why are there such symmetries?
The Magic Dismissal "Mere Coincidence" don't cut it for me, eh?
How about the Buddhist depiction of invariance ( 2000 or 2500 years before Einstein )?
If infinite-wisdom-mind is concentrating right there, and the observer is wisdom-nature contemplation, then the infinite-wisdom-mind one sees is red-shifted, being both orange-skinned and infinitely tranquil ( Manjushri ). If infinite-wisdom-mind is concentrating right there and the observer is ignorance-nature, then infinite-wisdom-mind one sees is blue-shifted, both blue-skinned and blazing violence and annihilation. Same infinite-wisdom-mind, different appearance, due to the mind of the observer, and the /red/-shift and /blue/-shift is right there in the t'anka paintings of 2?00 years ago.
So if Buddhism depicted our speed as invariant, between Mind and Time, and Einstein depicted it as invariant, between Time and Space, why is it assumed that only Time and Space can be actual and real?Cripes, Ninja have seen mild versions of this same invariance, in their training, and I've seen the same strange apparent-difference-in-time-speed with a few ultra-total competitors...
Try this: ( and get the slashfuck spaces out from the URL, I can't get the system to allow the display of the link correctly )t sAndSuperpowers.html
http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/MartialAr
Whatever: concertedly ignoring evidence because it doesn't amplify one's assumptions'-position/importance within a cultural prejudice strikes me as doltish, and If Universe includes mind ( that we discuss indicates it does, for all except behaviourists ), then Universe is elegant indeed, and solving-one's-way-out makes sense to me...
Why do I offer stuff that doesn't assume as Standard Prejudice does?
Because I feel that everyone's autonomy is worth something, and the sciences that discovered invariance between Mind and Time are sciences of Mind. If they work, get results, are effective, then why not honestly try 'em rather than just mechanistically not doing so for habit's sake? Is habit worth more than my or your meaning or understanding?
< pauses thoughtfully >
Ah, .. Why?
PLEASE - MOD THAT UP!
http://www.freetype.org/jam/
Actually, I read about one big ERP ( IIRC ) company having to choose some specific place as their corporate HQ -- they'd run a hierarchy-on-demand system with no HQ, but that wasn't acceptable to the IRS.
'read that in "Corps Business: the 30 Management Principles of the US Marines" ( David H Freedman, and it's an excellent book )
. . no pun intended . .
: P
Just wondering, because it seems inevitable to me that Freenet and GNUnet are going to be the only place left in the world where independent idea publishing can be, a short few years from now.
How will their differences in design/engineering change their 'base', or
otherly phrased, what portions of our idea-world will live freely in each 'net'?
No, that was the urban myth that cropped up, but the author specifically stated that that wasn't the origin of it.
And was damned annoyed that that bogon wouldn't die.
But, from waayyy back when, when the movie first came out, I remember that HAL stood for Holographic Algorithm ( or Algorithmic ) Logic, and the weird thing is, I wasn't old enough to have ever heard the term Algorithm ( that I know of ), from/for any other source/reason, back in the early '70s.
- - Yes I know this is a bit off-topic, but please, if information, concisely given, puts out one more damned urban myth
( which are deeply worse than merely off-topic -- they pull us all wrong: holding our minds on wrong knowing ),
then let us simply see it.
Thanks, and peace.
Cute Filter Trick:
set a filter that works like this
Put it after your 'friends' filters ( who may bcc or cc you ).
That was the opinion of NewScientist magazine, but shortly before the actual date, something happened in Australia that changed their mind ( it was in an editorial, IIRC, not in the online version -- the mag really is worth it ).
What changed their mind, is that some smelting operation ( again, IIRC ) destroyed itself automatically, when the computers that poured fuel ( coal? ) into the furnaces kept doing so, while the computers that poured ore into the system stopped doing so, because Feb 29th didn't, according to them, exist.
Autodestruct, though not quite HAL-style ( as an aside, didn't HAL stand for Holographic Algorithmic Logic? -- remember the clear blocks they used as HAL's units in the computer-room, too )
Sudden, Colossally Expensive equipment damage, but no lives lost.
Had that happened in one model of autopilot. . .
And yes, I remember some city administration stating that they'd done a 'dry run' of rollover, and discovered that the basic infrastructure didn't work ( water was one item specifically mentioned, though I don't remember if it was treatment or what ).
Of course, 'no disaster that had been about-to-be-caused by this code that we discovered to be non-correct didn't happen' . . isn't front-page news.
I know for fact, that some federal gov't contracters were writing NON-Y2K compliant code in 1998 ( either being committedly braindead, or hoping that the re-write contracts would pay extravagantly when the social-insurance system broke on-the-day ).
The English/Imperial system based the gallon on 10 lbs. of water, so it was simply based.
1 pound == 454g,
1 imp. gallon == 10x 1 pound == 10x454g == 4.54Kg, or
( with water ) 4.54 litres.
Hence the standard ( not US ) gallon being 4.5 litres.
Where { 3.8 litres == 1 gallon } American 'gallons' came from, I don't know. . .
Note the winking smiley in that. Yes, they probably actually knew that Systiéme Internationale == Metric With A French Accént.
What about thttpd ?
Has anyone compared it with fnord?
And Yes, I know it hasn't been updated in awhile ( May, actually, from the timestamps in the tarball, referring to the beta version ), but maybe they don't feel need to update it for their purposes anymore. . .
Sodium et al is packed in oil. If one removes an oil-packed, oil-soaked hunk of sodium from a jar/bottle, and drops it onto a lake, the oil won't acquire Spontaneous Disappearance just because you did so, eh?
If it is packed in a light oil it'll get compromised quickly, if packed in a heavier one, then slower, right?
I don't consider the story about dumping oil-coated sodium on a lake and having time to get to shore before - BAM - to be < ahem > "male cow" excrement.Get 2 different OCR-engine programs
Scan the same text in - to plain text - with program 1, scan it in to a second plain-text file with OCR program 2, and 'diff' 'em, ignoring white-space.
That means the indifidual person running the scanning doesn't have anywhere near the amount of work to do.
Small erors may get through, but it is drastically fast, in comparison with the way it normally is done, eh?
Stephen J. Gould recognized only 3 kingdoms:
Archaeia ( spelling there? ), or primitive/original bacteria
Bacteria ( the normal ones, not the 130C eats-bedrock-and-steam variety ), and
Everything Else
He based this on genetics/cladistics ( dividing species by genetics, rather than by appearance: putting rabbits in with primates rather than rodents, ferinstance )
I say the evidence is correct, no matter what Established Knowledge say about the pattern of reality.
Also, it's been discovered recently that fungi are closer to animals than to plants, genetically ( sorta explains slime-molds, eh? - plants aren't usually that ambulatory, trifids excepted )
BS.
Read "Class: A Guide Through the American Status System"
( Paul Fussell )
Informative Review
Review
Amazon.com, 4.5 stars