If I remember correctly from one of the shows on it, the terrain there is so desolate that the military maps just denoted different "Areas." The base happened to be situated in "Area 51." It was on TV, and I vaguely remember it that way, so I am totally sure its true.
True, but my humor hinges on puns. I rely on them for the only laughs that are routed my way. In fact, listening to me without them would simply be murder...
If the router is missing, how will you know whether it is actually turned on or if it's still off? Or are they implying that the antanae will be raised? (giggity)
He uploaded the 120 dpi image instead of the 300 dpi image and is surprised the OCR sucks. Really? Lossy isn't the concern when you're OCR'ing bloack text on a white background. Seriously. Think about what the image is actually going to be used for, then make your decision.
And, seriously, how effective of OCR'ing are you really imagining you're going to get off of a camera phone pic, anyway?
What I'm looking for is that every time a new Monarch was crowned that his entire realm was thrown akilter as every last measurement was changed. I get you're not from the US and am guessing you're German. In teh US the only citation I have ever seen similar to what you posited is in Math books. Specifically, Math books in the section discussing the Metric System. I have not seen references to Kingdoms, Empires, or any other Political unit having engineering difficulties because of a new ruler having short feet. That's what I'm looking for. Did units evolve over time? Sure. How long is a Cubit after all? It is the extremeness of the example that I find doubtful.
The mere fact that the USA call their measuring system imperial is a kind of joke or not?
I mean you make a kind of revolution to get rid of the empire... and 200 years later you still use "empire" units. Albeit badly transmogrified ones. And on top of that you call the "empire" units now "imperial".
In all honesty we don't think of them as Imperial at all. We think of them as the measures we know and use and grok. They are only referenced as "Imperial" in discussions like this as a way to differentiate them from the Metric System (which is what I was raised to call it) or the SI measurments.
The USA, the land of miracles... no one wil ever understand you.
Obviously I'm from the US and there is much, much truth to what you say. This is a land of miracles in many ways. It is also a land of ignorance. A land of hate. A land of fear. And a land of beauty, and kindness, hard-work, and charity. It is a great many things which really have no business co-existing next to each other, but somehow do.
I'm guessing from the ".de" that you're German. I would also be very surprised if much of what I just wrote isn't also true to your country. Sure we have our stereotypes of what Germans are like, but I would be shocked if Germany did not ahve just as many contradictory levels as the US. Or any other country.
Generally speaking, the reason why the US has never embraced the Metric System is that there has never been a need to. We are also a very fundamentally practical people. And tend to be more individualist, too. Our units work. Why change?
In old times the King decided how long an inch is (usually the width of his thump, he decided what what the length of a foot is, usually the length of his foot) and so on. if a king died the next king got "measured" and the units got changed in size. So roughly every 20 - 30 years you had a new inch, a new foot, a new ell a new yard (roughly one step length) a new mile etc. Two steps a re a "double step" and 1000 double steps are a mile. Wow, why that sudden 1000...
I've seen this in Math book whent hey try and sell you on the Metric system, but I've yet to actually encounter this in a History book. Do you have actual examples, or are you simply repaeting the propoganda without thinking about it?
Later the length of a mile (especially a nautical mile) got defined by the length of an arc minute of the equator... Your calculating examples make not much sense either.
How does basing a unit of navigation directly on one fo the variables of navigation not make sense? 1" = 1 Mile seems like a much smarter method of navigation than 1" = 1.852 Kilometers.
Of course the entire point to the discussion is that US system make better sense in the actual world in which we live. If you really want to convert the US metric, call the meter a yard, the kilogram a pound, a liter a quart and be done with it.
Humor in a leadership position can be very powerful, but inappropriately applied it can be devastating. Like you said, its knowing when to apply it and when not to that makes all the difference.
I would think giving people the help to be self-sustaining would be the first step in stabalizing the government. It certainly seems like the more corrupt regimes are allowed to flourish because they control what few resources the country has. Take away that control with self-sufficiency and you have a better chance to get rid of the corrupt regimes. It's still going to be hard, but I think the bottom-up changes fare better than the top-down. Especially if the only effective way for a top-down change comes from outside a country's borders.
I've always thought it rather obvious that Science is a Faith. If a word cannot be used to define itself, than how can Science ever be used to prove itself?
Even if both Science and Religion have their roots in Faith, however, their differences are staggering. Religion is only about Faith. There is nothing more to it than belief, and not only is there no way to systematically test what is taught, but it is discouraged as indicative of too little Faith.
Science is all about that very exploration. Challenging what is taught and verifying for yourself that it is true. It may, fundamentally, be a Faith, but then again, isn't our acceptance of our sensory inputs a Faith as well?
Perhaps the most important thing they do is accept when their pre-conceived notions do not match the data. They talk about what they're expectations are, and how surprised or shocked they'd be if it was the opposite. Then, when it is the opposite, they delve into why, and how cool it is.
"Failure is always an option," and they learn fromt hem, too.
I don't care why academics went to school for "all those years". With the exception of a few fields, a non credentialed individual can have just as much credibility and experience and knowledge as someone with an institutional education.
You're absolutely right that a non-credentialed person can have the same knowledge, if not more, than the credentialed individual. However, just because they can doesn't mean it is is more likely than not. I was not perhaps clear enough, but I'm not trying to address an Academic with a PhD making edits as opposed to someone without the same education, but who has been doing the job for decades. I'm comparing the Academic coming as compared to the wikipedia guy who has no real experience in teh particular field but since he has constributed to 10,000+ wikipedia articles gets a bump a in credulity.
Further, by that logic, you will then have to declare contributions from people with degrees from one educational institution as more valuable and meaningful than those from another.
Again, generally speaking, some instutions are more academically rigorous than others. I have no doubt there are indivual examples that are contrary, but I would rather my Doctor have a degree from Stanford than Hollywood Upstairs School of Medicine.
And if it were Crystal Pepsi poured onto a bowl of Mr T Cereal, that would be an infinite win of awesome that would send poor Mr Mathis right to the funny farm.
Unless he just had a can of Billy Beer that combo would even subdue Chuck F. Norris. Well, for a second
If wikipedia wants academics they'll need a nice clean slate for only academics to play in.
Exactly. Because Academics went to school for all those years so their edits can carry the same weight as anyone off the street. Its an even better bonus that if the random dude of the street has been contributing longer they'll get a bump in credibility.
I simply choose not to tolerate willful ignorance when source material is literally one click away.
How exactly will you "not tolerate" it? By typing RTFA? If people posting without reading TFA really, truly bothers you, than about the only thing/. will regularly provide you is aggrevation.
Or, to put it in terms religious types would understand, just because a Priest or Minister steals, commits adultery, or even molests a child doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Why was it called Area 51?
If I remember correctly from one of the shows on it, the terrain there is so desolate that the military maps just denoted different "Areas." The base happened to be situated in "Area 51." It was on TV, and I vaguely remember it that way, so I am totally sure its true.
How do you differentiate a troll from someone just drinking the derpaide?
Well played, sir, well played!
That... That is a whole lotta derp right there, I tell you what.
True, but my humor hinges on puns. I rely on them for the only laughs that are routed my way. In fact, listening to me without them would simply be murder...
Murder Trial May Turn On Missing Router
If the router is missing, how will you know whether it is actually turned on or if it's still off? Or are they implying that the antanae will be raised? (giggity)
He uploaded the 120 dpi image instead of the 300 dpi image and is surprised the OCR sucks. Really? Lossy isn't the concern when you're OCR'ing bloack text on a white background. Seriously. Think about what the image is actually going to be used for, then make your decision.
And, seriously, how effective of OCR'ing are you really imagining you're going to get off of a camera phone pic, anyway?
What I'm looking for is that every time a new Monarch was crowned that his entire realm was thrown akilter as every last measurement was changed. I get you're not from the US and am guessing you're German. In teh US the only citation I have ever seen similar to what you posited is in Math books. Specifically, Math books in the section discussing the Metric System. I have not seen references to Kingdoms, Empires, or any other Political unit having engineering difficulties because of a new ruler having short feet. That's what I'm looking for. Did units evolve over time? Sure. How long is a Cubit after all? It is the extremeness of the example that I find doubtful.
... and 200 years later you still use "empire" units. Albeit badly transmogrified ones. And on top of that you call the "empire" units now "imperial".
... no one wil ever understand you.
The mere fact that the USA call their measuring system imperial is a kind of joke or not?
I mean you make a kind of revolution to get rid of the empire
In all honesty we don't think of them as Imperial at all. We think of them as the measures we know and use and grok. They are only referenced as "Imperial" in discussions like this as a way to differentiate them from the Metric System (which is what I was raised to call it) or the SI measurments.
The USA, the land of miracles
Obviously I'm from the US and there is much, much truth to what you say. This is a land of miracles in many ways. It is also a land of ignorance. A land of hate. A land of fear. And a land of beauty, and kindness, hard-work, and charity. It is a great many things which really have no business co-existing next to each other, but somehow do.
I'm guessing from the ".de" that you're German. I would also be very surprised if much of what I just wrote isn't also true to your country. Sure we have our stereotypes of what Germans are like, but I would be shocked if Germany did not ahve just as many contradictory levels as the US. Or any other country.
Generally speaking, the reason why the US has never embraced the Metric System is that there has never been a need to. We are also a very fundamentally practical people. And tend to be more individualist, too. Our units work. Why change?
In old times the King decided how long an inch is (usually the width of his thump, he decided what what the length of a foot is, usually the length of his foot) and so on. if a king died the next king got "measured" and the units got changed in size. So roughly every 20 - 30 years you had a new inch, a new foot, a new ell a new yard (roughly one step length) a new mile etc. Two steps a re a "double step" and 1000 double steps are a mile. Wow, why that sudden 1000 ...
I've seen this in Math book whent hey try and sell you on the Metric system, but I've yet to actually encounter this in a History book. Do you have actual examples, or are you simply repaeting the propoganda without thinking about it?
Later the length of a mile (especially a nautical mile) got defined by the length of an arc minute of the equator... Your calculating examples make not much sense either.
How does basing a unit of navigation directly on one fo the variables of navigation not make sense? 1" = 1 Mile seems like a much smarter method of navigation than 1" = 1.852 Kilometers.
Of course the entire point to the discussion is that US system make better sense in the actual world in which we live. If you really want to convert the US metric, call the meter a yard, the kilogram a pound, a liter a quart and be done with it.
Humor in a leadership position can be very powerful, but inappropriately applied it can be devastating. Like you said, its knowing when to apply it and when not to that makes all the difference.
Some would even argue we're running the other direction, too.
I would think giving people the help to be self-sustaining would be the first step in stabalizing the government. It certainly seems like the more corrupt regimes are allowed to flourish because they control what few resources the country has. Take away that control with self-sufficiency and you have a better chance to get rid of the corrupt regimes. It's still going to be hard, but I think the bottom-up changes fare better than the top-down. Especially if the only effective way for a top-down change comes from outside a country's borders.
So is undo all ::head deask::?
I've always thought it rather obvious that Science is a Faith. If a word cannot be used to define itself, than how can Science ever be used to prove itself?
Even if both Science and Religion have their roots in Faith, however, their differences are staggering. Religion is only about Faith. There is nothing more to it than belief, and not only is there no way to systematically test what is taught, but it is discouraged as indicative of too little Faith.
Science is all about that very exploration. Challenging what is taught and verifying for yourself that it is true. It may, fundamentally, be a Faith, but then again, isn't our acceptance of our sensory inputs a Faith as well?
Consciousness is an illusion.
Lunchtime doubly so.
Perhaps the most important thing they do is accept when their pre-conceived notions do not match the data. They talk about what they're expectations are, and how surprised or shocked they'd be if it was the opposite. Then, when it is the opposite, they delve into why, and how cool it is.
"Failure is always an option," and they learn fromt hem, too.
Billy Beer was a beer endorsed by Billy Carter, Jimmy's ne'er do well brother :-)
I don't care why academics went to school for "all those years". With the exception of a few fields, a non credentialed individual can have just as much credibility and experience and knowledge as someone with an institutional education.
You're absolutely right that a non-credentialed person can have the same knowledge, if not more, than the credentialed individual. However, just because they can doesn't mean it is is more likely than not. I was not perhaps clear enough, but I'm not trying to address an Academic with a PhD making edits as opposed to someone without the same education, but who has been doing the job for decades. I'm comparing the Academic coming as compared to the wikipedia guy who has no real experience in teh particular field but since he has constributed to 10,000+ wikipedia articles gets a bump a in credulity.
Further, by that logic, you will then have to declare contributions from people with degrees from one educational institution as more valuable and meaningful than those from another.
Again, generally speaking, some instutions are more academically rigorous than others. I have no doubt there are indivual examples that are contrary, but I would rather my Doctor have a degree from Stanford than Hollywood Upstairs School of Medicine.
And if it were Crystal Pepsi poured onto a bowl of Mr T Cereal, that would be an infinite win of awesome that would send poor Mr Mathis right to the funny farm.
Unless he just had a can of Billy Beer that combo would even subdue Chuck F. Norris. Well, for a second
If wikipedia wants academics they'll need a nice clean slate for only academics to play in.
Exactly. Because Academics went to school for all those years so their edits can carry the same weight as anyone off the street. Its an even better bonus that if the random dude of the street has been contributing longer they'll get a bump in credibility.
How is that even valid!? Diet Pepsi would totally kick the living snot out of Johnny Mathis!
I simply choose not to tolerate willful ignorance when source material is literally one click away.
/. will regularly provide you is aggrevation.
How exactly will you "not tolerate" it? By typing RTFA? If people posting without reading TFA really, truly bothers you, than about the only thing
In your haste to comment, you failed like so many others to READ.
You must be new here. If you're looking for commentary based on actually based on TFA, than perhaps slashdot is not for you...
Just because it is in the NYT or Wall Street Journal doesn't make it worth anything.
They're both pretentious dinosaurs who think that their name alone makes them more valuable, focusing more on their brand than their content.
Or, to put it in terms religious types would understand, just because a Priest or Minister steals, commits adultery, or even molests a child doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.
Science, is not the same thing as Scientists.