All three of these women (and others on the referenced list) contributed something fundamental in mathematics. In the case of Hopper and Lovelace, those contributions were absolutely fundamental to the way all of our computers work. Yes, those computers that we spend all this time working and playing on, the computers that take orders, show us the news, allow us to discuss things, save lives, make the 21st-Century economy possible.
If you're a man, tell me how much better you'd have been than Ada Lovelace at translating a treatise on the Analytical Engine in the 1830's and adding annotations that run to ten times the length of the original document. While she was at it, she raised and discussed the idea of (and what's now one of the standard objections to) Artificial Intelligence, the universality of computers, the fact that the study of algorithms and procedural mathematics, deserved to be recognized as a new and distinct field, the possibility of computer-generated music, and a couple of algorithms that are recognized as amongst the first "computer programs." Yeah, that girl didn't know math at all.
If you're a man, tell me how much faster you could have invented FLO-MATIC or COBOL than Grace Hopper did, or how much money you made explaining computers to white-haired businessmen with a "nanosecond" of fiber optic cable in one hand and a "microsecond" of cable coiled in the other. Hopper didn't understand math at all, that's why they named a giant Navy boat bristling with computers and weapons in her honor.
And I'm not even a mathematician or an academic. I'm sure Slashdot readers could fill in their favorites that I don't even know about.
The fact is that there are and have always been talented men in this field, but these women took interest and initiative, and did something wonderful, before a man did it.
Is there a geek among us, male or female, who hasn't enjoyed explaining math to a non-geek, male or female, and then seeing the light of understanding dawn in that other person? This takes patience and time as all teaching does, and one of the hardest hurdles is convincing your "student" (perhaps a friend, using a pen and some bar napkins) that they really are capable of grasping this thing.
What a rush, and from my standpoint that economist would have made better use of his time perhaps speaking from his own mathematical expertise than declaiming who can and can't understand mathematics.
Math is for everybody and anybody who's interested. People that make generalizations about who can and can't understand math or anything else really piss me off. Feynman had a phrase (I think it's from the Preface to the Lectures on Physics), here adapted from its original meaning, "Respect for our subject did not permit this."
A little respect please, for the math and the women who can excel in it just like men.
If any of y'all wind up working for the parent poster, make sure to hold on to your hands....(from Arthur C. Clarke's _The Fountains of Paradise_ (1979))
Well, okay, I can deal with the *possibility* of n extra dimensions. But when the NOVA special tops out at showing at how "sad" the little computer-animated strings are when the theory's not doing so well, and then the strings are happier later...and this whole show shows me like *NO* new equations, I just feel like John Cleese as the magician "Tim" in the Holy Grail..."Ye-uh se its not waves...Look at the e to the i thetas!"
The sympathetic and empathy-encouraging smiles my genius cousin-in-law friend gives me don't help one bit.
"It seems some fundamentally new ideas are here needed." -- P. A. M. Dirac.
I was at the dinner table meeting my wife-to-be's (we've since married) cousins. One of them was a Harvard educated Ph.D physicist who had taught at Oxford (or the other way around...) I was a physics dropout, so of course I was incredibly pleased to meet him, and wanted to find out his specialty. (Mine was gonna be atomic spectroscopy before I quit. I read the Feynman lectures and had a first pass through real quantum, I'm thinking I could maybe keep up.)
"So William, what, ya know, what did you do your dissertation on?" I asked, as politely as I could.
"Oh, William does String Theory," announced my mother-in-law-to-be over her best china. Everyone else at the table gives the obligatory geek acknowledging sigh: "Wow, that's so deep we'll never understand it so please don't explain it to us."
So as that is hitting the table I'm blurting out "And they gave you the Ph.D. for THAT???"
Fortunately, the family could tell from his laughter that it wasn't a big scandal....
Mod parent up: "remembrance" means "participation"
on
Atlantis Found. Again.
·
· Score: 1
Mea culpa. I had heard that about Hebrew culture: participating in the Passover or Seder meal, for example, is much more than just remembering that there was an original one to begin with: it's a level of complete participation in the event that in a real sense, carries you back to that original moment. Correct? (It is similarly said in Anglican tradition at least that Communion/Eucharist/Lord's Supper observances also have this more-than-remembering tie-back to the Last Supper of Christ.)
Our young Episcopal Priest told us of the latter in order to instruct us about the former, namely, the special place a particapatory remembrance has in ancient culture. So he might have been making a leap that isn't backed up in scholarship (I think he was backed up, he is a scholastic type), but it's not a bad analogy.
Correct me/Expound? And what has this to do with midrash?
Right down the road from Athens, and Macon[ium]...
Er, doesn't this claim require external evidence?
on
Atlantis Found. Again.
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
including important chronicles about Moses, Solomon, and others, were actually made up for the first time by scribes hired by King Josiah
It is important to note that the Bible does make mention of Moses recording historical and legal material in written form, as in Exodus 17:14, 24:4, and 34:27, and in Numbers 33:2. Modern scholarship would suggest that these words of Moses were passed down and later recorded in the form that we have today.
Pardon my asking, but aren't these sources (Exodus, Numbers) the very sources which the grandparent posting calls into doubt as original works of Moses (transmitted to later scribes or otherwise)?
I love Exodus 17:14:
Then the LORD said to Moses, 'Write this as a reminder in a book and recite it in the hearing of Joshua: I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.
Seems like in order for the remembrance of Amalek to really be blotted out from under heaven, we'd have to destroy a bunch of Bibles!
Here's Exodus 24:4.
And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD.
Exodus 34:27 is one of the "Giving of the Ten Commandments" narratives.
Numbers 33:2 purports to describe the Exodus from Egypt itself, and, intra, gives details about the route taken from Egypt by Israel.
Fine, if you can accept a source as justification for its own validity. But I would think that modern scholarship would look for some external validation for these claims. For instance, can any record be found among contemporary Egyptian chronicles giving just these vectors for the departing Israelites, a record that preferably wasn't available in the time of King Josiah?
I treasure the Bible, personally (I also treasure other, much older stories such as Gilgamesh.) But my appreciation of the Bible isn't constrained by having to believe that everything in it is true in the style of modern history (lots of untruth there, too.)
if (!person.name.equals("George W Bush"))
{
1) Scan you down to the atomic level
2) Transmit the billions of petabytes of data to the receiving station
3) Rebuild you from the atomic level-up from the transmitted data
4) Confirm you'd been built correctly
}
5) Vaporize or otherwise annihilate the source person
The Koreans looked at the death rates in 10 regions with AM radio-transmitting towers broadcasting at more than 100 kilowatts and compared them with control areas without transmitters.
My father said that in the old days, the transmitter for a radio station in Texas was actually located over the US-Mexico border
where the FCC power limitations did not apply. Dad said that he was able to receive this station
with some regularity when he was growing up in Western Kentucky (which would have been in the late 1940s to late 1950s.)
Also, I remember Feynman talking about crystal sets, and saying that he could pick up WACO "in Waco Texas" as a child on a radio he puttered
with as a child: that would have been in the late 1920's-1930's.
Any radio experts out there want to tell me if my Dad and Feynman were listening to the same station? And if so, what was its power?
I also remember from my amateur radio theory
that the phenomena of atmo/tropo/iono/spheric layers changing as a result of the transition from day to night is slightly complicated by the numbers of layers (which represent different average states of ionization for particles at a particular altitude.) I believe the transition between one layer and the next represents an effective change in the refractive index (which is in turn related to the variable speed of light in a particular material.)
At any such boundary between average quantum energy states, there is an amplitude (possibility) for some of the energy of an incident wave to be reflected, and part of it to be transmitted (with the concomitant change in angle of transmission given by Snell's law.)
This reflection will take place at both the "inner" and "outer" surfaces of a particular layer. So in addition to the refractive bending of the earth's ionosphere, it is possible to have not
just one-hop reflections off the "inner" surface of one layer, but extended "multi-hop" transmissions, where part of the wave makes it through the inner surface of the layer only to be bounced back by the outer surface of that layer, and then part of this once-transmitted, once-reflected energy leaks back down to the ground through the inner surface, while another fraction still is reflected back upwards from the inner surface for another shot at being reflected downwards...but at a much greater distance from the source. So at each pass, you lose energy, but you go this enormous distance.
So with layers appearing and disappearing all the time, I imagine experienced DX shortwave radio operators look at the ionization meterology data the way I as a web geek would look at an ever changing network status chart...
Is intended to allow the developers of Linux, as well as the various UNI*es, to register and tell what they know of their own roles, as well as the development of each feature of each version of UNIX flavored operating system. Stay tuned to Groklaw for the official announcement...we're working on getting the site up within the next couple of days.
Even the American-released version is truly scary and dark. It's action-packed, with the dread advancing faster than the characters can formulate a solution. And of course, the solution is as tragic as the original situation.
Godzilla is a dystopian sci-fi masterpiece for mood, and I've shed many a movie-goer tear as the scientist burns his notes, and his ex-betrothed realizes what's going to happen: there is horror advancing through that scene without a single monster in sight, and not a single word spoken.
If you can get past the 1954 production values to see Godzilla for what it is, a terrifying and cautionary tale of technology gone wrong, I guarantee that it's possible to enjoy Godzilla 1954 just as much as the many later attempts to visit this, uh...stomping ground.
In American film music of the 1950's, the ultimate composer was probably Bernard Hermann (Psycho, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Citizen Kane, to name a very very few.) In the Soviet Union, it was Shostakvich and others.
In Japan, it was Akira Ifukube, who scored the original Godzilla and a host of sequels. Once dubbed the "Igor Stravinkski" of Japan, Ifukube built real suspense and menace into the Godzilla score through the repeated use of a collage of simple themes, much as composers such as John Williams would later do for film soundtracks like "Star Wars."
There are many excellent Japanese import CDs that can be ordered, at least from the U.S., which contain the very best of the sparkling Gozilla scores, including an all-year retrospective in two volumes.
Just plausible enough, even if it's parody.
on
419er Lost in Space
·
· Score: 1
It's interesting what levels this works on, either as satire, parody, or an honest scam. It's right on the edge, playing with all three...very creative.
The poor schmuck is supposed to be a real live government-style astronaut, not a space tourist. But we have actual, real space tourists these days (of course, not many.) There are now people in space more or less continuously, and have been for some years...so many that even the average space fan may not be able to name the ISS crew on orbit for a given mission.
The space tourists paid US$20M apiece, so $3M is right in the ballpark, possibly in the minds of some, for an appreciable fraction of the cost of a Soyuz "rescue flight." (I am well aware that the total mission costs are many times $20M, but it's within an order of magnitude of a price people have heard of associated for space travel for just any person with the money.
"His place was taken up with return cargo." That's so SAD! Brave little guy, won't you help bring him home!:)
(A prediction of future technology that becomes completely outstripped by what actually happens.)
I'm wondering if the plague of lib updates that's necessary these days is something that will ultimately work itself out: that more and more libs will approach stable forms as the years go by.
Seems like there's little point in worrying about it. What seems like a pain now is just an artifact of having so much distributed development going on regarding stuff that will just be completely done for all time some day. There will always be new libraries, but will glibc2 *always* be changing month to month or whatever? How many ways are there to do printf() or sqrt() or GLX_whatever()?
Or am I completely off my rocker, meaning that some conscious giant collaboration is really required to nail things down once and for all?
One way to characterize the situation: are the libs we have today like early machine parts in the first stages of the Industrial Revolution, when it must have been a pain to have to standardize a million different things like bolt sizes and the thread spacing on wooden mop handles? Or are they like a human natural language in the early stages of its development (Old English, say, during the first generation after the Battle of Hastings.)
In the Industrial Revolution machine part case, things did get easier, probably with nothing more than laissez-fair, market driven forces - you know, who's making the best screws this year? But with the first generation of standardized screws available it was easier to construct the lathes which made the second generation of standardized screws. And so on, until no one is worried anymore about the bare challenge of finding standardized screws: you're worried more about getting good like automated valve regulators, speed governors. You don't care about the screws in the regulator: they're all good enough now. You only care about the assembly. The pain is the same, just the focus is different. Since it happens slowly, you don't notice.
In the case of human natural language, things are always bending and changing. The double negative in English winds up being more or less legitimized as an emphatic negative. More complications are always arising which continually upset the structure to its core: you never get to a point where all your verb tense rules are stable, and so on.
Which way? Do we need an Academie Francaise, or no?
This version has added scenes with Raymond Burr as a visiting American reporter, and two or three others who are made up to look like the Japanese principals. Doubtless they altered the film in some other ways to introduce these scenes.
However, this should not deter you, if the 1954 American version is all that you can find (understand, I mean the augmented version that was prepared by Toho for release in the US, back in 1954). The movie still holds together pretty well. Remember that Raymond Burr was getting meaty roles back in 1954, such as in Hitchcock's "Rear Window," where he plays the villian. We're inclined in my generation to think of him as this ancient sod, not at all the case 50 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
All three of these women (and others on the referenced list) contributed something fundamental in mathematics. In the case of Hopper and Lovelace, those contributions were absolutely fundamental to the way all of our computers work. Yes, those computers that we spend all this time working and playing on, the computers that take orders, show us the news, allow us to discuss things, save lives, make the 21st-Century economy possible.
If you're a man, tell me how much better you'd have been than Ada Lovelace at translating a treatise on the Analytical Engine in the 1830's and adding annotations that run to ten times the length of the original document. While she was at it, she raised and discussed the idea of (and what's now one of the standard objections to) Artificial Intelligence, the universality of computers, the fact that the study of algorithms and procedural mathematics, deserved to be recognized as a new and distinct field, the possibility of computer-generated music, and a couple of algorithms that are recognized as amongst the first "computer programs." Yeah, that girl didn't know math at all.
If you're a man, tell me how much faster you could have invented FLO-MATIC or COBOL than Grace Hopper did, or how much money you made explaining computers to white-haired businessmen with a "nanosecond" of fiber optic cable in one hand and a "microsecond" of cable coiled in the other. Hopper didn't understand math at all, that's why they named a giant Navy boat bristling with computers and weapons in her honor.
And I'm not even a mathematician or an academic. I'm sure Slashdot readers could fill in their favorites that I don't even know about.
The fact is that there are and have always been talented men in this field, but these women took interest and initiative, and did something wonderful, before a man did it.
Is there a geek among us, male or female, who hasn't enjoyed explaining math to a non-geek, male or female, and then seeing the light of understanding dawn in that other person? This takes patience and time as all teaching does, and one of the hardest hurdles is convincing your "student" (perhaps a friend, using a pen and some bar napkins) that they really are capable of grasping this thing.
What a rush, and from my standpoint that economist would have made better use of his time perhaps speaking from his own mathematical expertise than declaiming who can and can't understand mathematics.
Math is for everybody and anybody who's interested. People that make generalizations about who can and can't understand math or anything else really piss me off. Feynman had a phrase (I think it's from the Preface to the Lectures on Physics), here adapted from its original meaning, "Respect for our subject did not permit this."
A little respect please, for the math and the women who can excel in it just like men.
If any of y'all wind up working for the parent poster, make sure to hold on to your hands....(from Arthur C. Clarke's _The Fountains of Paradise_ (1979))
http://math.cofc.edu/faculty/kasman/MATHFICT/mfvie w.php?callnumber=mf319
Well, okay, I can deal with the *possibility* of n extra dimensions. But when the NOVA special tops out at showing at how "sad" the little computer-animated strings are when the theory's not doing so well, and then the strings are happier later...and this whole show shows me like *NO* new equations, I just feel like John Cleese as the magician "Tim" in the Holy Grail..."Ye-uh se its not waves...Look at the e to the i thetas!"
The sympathetic and empathy-encouraging smiles my genius cousin-in-law friend gives me don't help one bit.
"It seems some fundamentally new ideas are here needed." -- P. A. M. Dirac.
Er, uh, NO I didn't marry my cousin...
:)
And, er, it was Kentucky, so aside from that, you are about 99.44% pure.
And I am a real Kentuckian (hacker) so we will have to *fight*!
With apologies to R. E. Kaufman's ForTran Coloring Book!
Well, the hams and the String Theorists...
I was at the dinner table meeting my wife-to-be's (we've since married) cousins. One of them was a Harvard educated Ph.D physicist who had taught at Oxford (or the other way around...) I was a physics dropout, so of course I was incredibly pleased to meet him, and wanted to find out his specialty. (Mine was gonna be atomic spectroscopy before I quit. I read the Feynman lectures and had a first pass through real quantum, I'm thinking I could maybe keep up.)
"So William, what, ya know, what did you do your dissertation on?" I asked, as politely as I could.
"Oh, William does String Theory," announced my mother-in-law-to-be over her best china. Everyone else at the table gives the obligatory geek acknowledging sigh: "Wow, that's so deep we'll never understand it so please don't explain it to us."
So as that is hitting the table I'm blurting out "And they gave you the Ph.D. for THAT???"
Fortunately, the family could tell from his laughter that it wasn't a big scandal....
Mea culpa. I had heard that about Hebrew culture: participating in the Passover or Seder meal, for example, is much more than just remembering that there was an original one to begin with: it's a level of complete participation in the event that in a real sense, carries you back to that original moment. Correct? (It is similarly said in Anglican tradition at least that Communion/Eucharist/Lord's Supper observances also have this more-than-remembering tie-back to the Last Supper of Christ.)
Our young Episcopal Priest told us of the latter in order to instruct us about the former, namely, the special place a particapatory remembrance has in ancient culture. So he might have been making a leap that isn't backed up in scholarship (I think he was backed up, he is a scholastic type), but it's not a bad analogy.
Correct me/Expound? And what has this to do with midrash?
Right down the road from Athens, and Macon[ium]...
Pardon my asking, but aren't these sources (Exodus, Numbers) the very sources which the grandparent posting calls into doubt as original works of Moses (transmitted to later scribes or otherwise)?
I love Exodus 17:14:
Seems like in order for the remembrance of Amalek to really be blotted out from under heaven, we'd have to destroy a bunch of Bibles!
Here's Exodus 24:4.
Exodus 34:27 is one of the "Giving of the Ten Commandments" narratives.
Numbers 33:2 purports to describe the Exodus from Egypt itself, and, intra, gives details about the route taken from Egypt by Israel.
Fine, if you can accept a source as justification for its own validity. But I would think that modern scholarship would look for some external validation for these claims. For instance, can any record be found among contemporary Egyptian chronicles giving just these vectors for the departing Israelites, a record that preferably wasn't available in the time of King Josiah?
I treasure the Bible, personally (I also treasure other, much older stories such as Gilgamesh.) But my appreciation of the Bible isn't constrained by having to believe that everything in it is true in the style of modern history (lots of untruth there, too.)
History is written by winners.
ca. 3500 BC: Calculi is dying
ca. 2500 BC: Cuneiform is dying
1835: Babbage Design: 1. Make a precisely-machined brass gear 2: now do it a million times 3. ??? 4. Profit!
1837: The Analytical Engine is Dying
1978: BSD is Dying
if (!person.name.equals("George W Bush"))
{
1) Scan you down to the atomic level
2) Transmit the billions of petabytes of data to the receiving station
3) Rebuild you from the atomic level-up from the transmitted data
4) Confirm you'd been built correctly
}
5) Vaporize or otherwise annihilate the source person
From the article:
50,000 watts is probably close to the legal limit for AM commercial stations in the US. I found Why AM Radio Stations Must Reduce Power, Change Operations, or Cease Operations at Night at the FCC (for US-interested readers.)
My father said that in the old days, the transmitter for a radio station in Texas was actually located over the US-Mexico border where the FCC power limitations did not apply. Dad said that he was able to receive this station with some regularity when he was growing up in Western Kentucky (which would have been in the late 1940s to late 1950s.)
Also, I remember Feynman talking about crystal sets, and saying that he could pick up WACO "in Waco Texas" as a child on a radio he puttered with as a child: that would have been in the late 1920's-1930's.
Any radio experts out there want to tell me if my Dad and Feynman were listening to the same station? And if so, what was its power?
I also remember from my amateur radio theory that the phenomena of atmo/tropo/iono/spheric layers changing as a result of the transition from day to night is slightly complicated by the numbers of layers (which represent different average states of ionization for particles at a particular altitude.) I believe the transition between one layer and the next represents an effective change in the refractive index (which is in turn related to the variable speed of light in a particular material.)
At any such boundary between average quantum energy states, there is an amplitude (possibility) for some of the energy of an incident wave to be reflected, and part of it to be transmitted (with the concomitant change in angle of transmission given by Snell's law.)
This reflection will take place at both the "inner" and "outer" surfaces of a particular layer. So in addition to the refractive bending of the earth's ionosphere, it is possible to have not just one-hop reflections off the "inner" surface of one layer, but extended "multi-hop" transmissions, where part of the wave makes it through the inner surface of the layer only to be bounced back by the outer surface of that layer, and then part of this once-transmitted, once-reflected energy leaks back down to the ground through the inner surface, while another fraction still is reflected back upwards from the inner surface for another shot at being reflected downwards...but at a much greater distance from the source. So at each pass, you lose energy, but you go this enormous distance.
So with layers appearing and disappearing all the time, I imagine experienced DX shortwave radio operators look at the ionization meterology data the way I as a web geek would look at an ever changing network status chart...
73 DE KD4WCN"Now Pinky, all we need to do is relabel these bottles to read...
'Wash, Rinse, Repeat...INDEFINITELY!!!!'"
-- Pinky and the Brain
Is intended to allow the developers of Linux, as well as the various UNI*es, to register and tell what they know of their own roles, as well as the development of each feature of each version of UNIX flavored operating system. Stay tuned to Groklaw for the official announcement...we're working on getting the site up within the next couple of days.
Even the American-released version is truly scary and dark. It's action-packed, with the dread advancing faster than the characters can formulate a solution. And of course, the solution is as tragic as the original situation.
Godzilla is a dystopian sci-fi masterpiece for mood, and I've shed many a movie-goer tear as the scientist burns his notes, and his ex-betrothed realizes what's going to happen: there is horror advancing through that scene without a single monster in sight, and not a single word spoken.
If you can get past the 1954 production values to see Godzilla for what it is, a terrifying and cautionary tale of technology gone wrong, I guarantee that it's possible to enjoy Godzilla 1954 just as much as the many later attempts to visit this, uh...stomping ground.
In American film music of the 1950's, the ultimate composer was probably Bernard Hermann (Psycho, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Citizen Kane, to name a very very few.) In the Soviet Union, it was Shostakvich and others.
In Japan, it was Akira Ifukube, who scored the original Godzilla and a host of sequels. Once dubbed the "Igor Stravinkski" of Japan, Ifukube built real suspense and menace into the Godzilla score through the repeated use of a collage of simple themes, much as composers such as John Williams would later do for film soundtracks like "Star Wars."
There are many excellent Japanese import CDs that can be ordered, at least from the U.S., which contain the very best of the sparkling Gozilla scores, including an all-year retrospective in two volumes.
It's interesting what levels this works on, either as satire, parody, or an honest scam. It's right on the edge, playing with all three...very creative.
:)
The poor schmuck is supposed to be a real live government-style astronaut, not a space tourist. But we have actual, real space tourists these days (of course, not many.) There are now people in space more or less continuously, and have been for some years...so many that even the average space fan may not be able to name the ISS crew on orbit for a given mission.
The space tourists paid US$20M apiece, so $3M is right in the ballpark, possibly in the minds of some, for an appreciable fraction of the cost of a Soyuz "rescue flight." (I am well aware that the total mission costs are many times $20M, but it's within an order of magnitude of a price people have heard of associated for space travel for just any person with the money.
"His place was taken up with return cargo." That's so SAD! Brave little guy, won't you help bring him home!
(Hey, she's less than a year OLDER than me, so get your mind out of the gutter.)
(A prediction of future technology that becomes
completely outstripped by what actually happens.)
I'm wondering if the plague of lib updates that's necessary these days is something that will ultimately work itself out: that more and more libs will approach stable forms as the years go by.
Seems like there's little point in worrying about it. What seems like a pain now is just an artifact of having so much distributed development going on regarding stuff that will just be completely done for all time some day. There will always be new libraries, but will glibc2 *always* be changing month to month or whatever? How many ways are there to do printf() or sqrt() or GLX_whatever()?
Or am I completely off my rocker, meaning that some conscious giant collaboration is really required to nail things down once and for all?
One way to characterize the situation: are the libs we have today like early machine parts in the first stages of the Industrial Revolution, when it must have been a pain to have to standardize a million different things like bolt sizes and the thread spacing on wooden mop handles? Or are they like a human natural language in the early stages of its development (Old English, say, during the first generation after the Battle of Hastings.)
In the Industrial Revolution machine part case, things did get easier, probably with nothing more than laissez-fair, market driven forces - you know, who's making the best screws this year? But with the first generation of standardized screws available it was easier to construct the lathes which made the second generation of standardized screws. And so on, until no one is worried anymore about the bare challenge of finding standardized screws: you're worried more about getting good like automated valve regulators, speed governors. You don't care about the screws in the regulator: they're all good enough now. You only care about the assembly. The pain is the same, just the focus is different. Since it happens slowly, you don't notice.
In the case of human natural language, things are always bending and changing. The double negative in English winds up being more or less legitimized as an emphatic negative. More complications are always arising which continually upset the structure to its core: you never get to a point where all your verb tense rules are stable, and so on.
Which way? Do we need an Academie Francaise, or no?
Wondering from which two movies out of 28 you
formed your opinions.
Lifetime on Monster Island, yes. Horror no. The monsters get to fight all day, and apparently they really like it. Minya is there, too!
It will be easier to insure towers.
Godzilla *HATES* towers.
"Tokyo Tower transmitted good television programs to millions of people. In the name of TV lovers everywhere, I WILL PUNISH YOU!" -- Sailor Moon
This version has added scenes with Raymond Burr as a visiting American reporter, and two or three others who are made up to look like the Japanese principals. Doubtless they altered the film in some other ways to introduce these scenes.
However, this should not deter you, if the 1954 American version is all that you can find (understand, I mean the augmented version that was prepared by Toho for release in the US, back in 1954). The movie still holds together pretty well. Remember that Raymond Burr was getting meaty roles back in 1954, such as in Hitchcock's "Rear Window," where he plays the villian. We're inclined in my generation to think of him as this ancient sod, not at all the case 50 years ago.
This mission is too important to allow you to jeapordize it.
In parent, for "errata" read "erratum." :)
(Ripping off an old Doug Hofstadter example)