At least the Celsius scale... delivers practical values that don't require too much thought to interpret.
If it's 0 deg C or lower then it's freezing, if it's above that then it's not. Water boils at exactly 100 deg C. Etc, etc.
Again: what's so special about 0 and 100? In day-to-day life, I don't really care what the freezing point of pure water is. All I know is that if the thermometer is below N, then it's really cold out, and if it's above N', it's really hot, etc. Ascribing any significance to the exact values of N and N' is pointless and -- dare I say -- unscientific.
Not to mention that 1 deg of change in C is equal to 1 deg of change in K, the SI unit for temperature, which makes Celsius far more practical a unit of measurement to any scientist than Fahrenheit will ever be.
So why not work in Kelvin in the first place?
Having said that, I can understand your resistance to change though...
I think you misunderstood my position. I don't really care which system is used. I'm used to Farenheit, but I can adapt to Celsius quickly. My complaint is with people who say that Celsius is somehow "better" or "more intuitive", when in reality both are just arbitrary scales.
Isn't that a more stupid and complex measurement, not particularly useful for any kind of scientific reference, than just using pure water?
I fail to see how the phase changes of water being calibrated to (32,212) degrees is any better or worse than having them at (0,100). They're just arbitrary values in either case (unless you're trying to ascribe some numerological significance to them...).
Now, if there was a ubiquitous formula that was made simpler by the fact that water freezes at 0 instead of 32 (e.g. you can drop a constant term), then I would buy that Celsius is better for scientific research. But until you can show me one...
Celsius is in fact, NOT arbitrary. Celsius is a scale where the phase change of water sets the zero (freeing) and 100 (boiling) marks.
And Fahrenheit is a scale where the zero point is attained by mixing equal parts of water, ice, and salt, and the phase changes of water are at 32 (freezing) and 212 (boiling). So it is no more arbitrary than Celsius.
... is that they probably have a patent application submitted for "conducting a safe online meeting place for interested parties by directly and indirectly analyzing the past criminal conduct records of participants in relation to a vast, continually updated registry of sex offenders and criminals". Imagine if their patent is approved and they get these laws passed in several states... Ca-ching!
I loved it, too-clean spaceships and cheap-looking interiors and all, until I saw the secret of the Vorlons, and I just didn't want to be watching a show about space angels.
Too bad you didn't keep watching. The Vorlons are the bad guys.
But did they really have a good enough story for a feature film, or were they banking on fanboys alone?
That's a good point... probably would've been a disappointment, because there's not really much they could do with only a couple hours.
I'm far from convinced that the language must necessarily lose sophistication and specificity of meaning in order to evolve to meet the demands of global usage.
I'm convinced of it because I spent three years working for a non-US company (in the US). When you spend most of your day speaking English with non-native speakers, you become more accepting of nonstandard (English) grammar. More than once, I've found myself phrasing things in the way that a Russian colleague of mine does.
"Evolution" is typically used to mean an increase in organization and sophistication
I'm afraid you're the one who's confused. "Evolution" doesn't signify an increase in organization and sophistication. It signifies a process of refinement or adjustment to new environments. In some cases, this means an increase in sophistication (e.g. when the environment is static), but in others it means a decrease in sophistication (typically when the environment is dynamic).
It seems to me that English has been going through a few decades of decreasing sophistication, as it takes the place of French as the international language of choice. As more and more non-native English speakers use the language, its useful vocabulary will shrink and its grammar will become more flexible. And so English will evolve from a language primarily used by the English and their (former) colonies into a world language.
The fact that it is a really good album is what made it succeed, not some plot by the labels to push "crap."
I can't speak about Maroon 5, as I've never heard them, but there almost certainly is a plot by the labels to push crap. What other explanation is there for Ashlee Simpson?
And besides, the US doesn't have absolute freedom of speech either. Just watch what happens if you publically announce (in a credible way) that you're going to kill the president. By your logic, that should be okay if you don't actually do so. Thankfully, reality does not reflect your logic.
Wow... you really skewered that strawman. Bravo.
Just to point you on the right track: making a credible threat against a specific person is a whole different ballgame than making vague derogatory statements about a group of people. But nice try anyway...
And let me add that you, like so many others, make the unforgivable mistake of lumping all European countries together as if they somehow have something significant in common, besides their geographical proximity. The differences between the countries of Europe are at least an order of magnitude bigger than the differences between the states of the US.
Oh come now, I can believe that the differences between the European countries is maybe 2 or 3 times greater than the differences between the US states, but a whole order of magnitude? That's really pushing it...
I wrote: you're assuming that my right to say "jews are inferior" (which I don't believe BTW) somehow infringes upon their "freedom". But which of their freedoms is supposedly infringed? How is saying something like that oppressing anybody?
jez9999 replied (emphasis mine): Incitement to racial/religious hatrid? Leading directly to others moving to the same opinion, perhaps violence being carried out on Jews, and ultimately, the tyranny of the majority causing anti-Jew candidates to be elected into government, which opens up a whole new ballpark of oppression...
All of which is potential oppression only. Making the statement is not oppressive. If (and it's a big if) it's followed up by action, then it's a problem, but not until.
Ultimately, there are (at least) two ways to counter this kind of speech. One is to suppress it (as the Europeans have done). The other is to counter it with more speech (as the Americans do). As a wise man once said, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". It seems to me that the European "solution" is the lazy way out. They're not willing to pay the price of eternal vigilance, so they don't get all of the freedom either. And of course, they then rationalize their loss of freedom as something that wasn't important anyway... However, given their history I suppose that that makes sense.
At the same time, I'm somewhat curious whether they would also be allowed to say "God hates negros" or the like.
Yes, they would. There was a recent case here that reached the Supreme Court regarding whether the KKK (a white supremacist group that was responsible for the killings of many blacks, mostly during the 50's and 60's) could participate in a highway litter cleanup project. Basically, the group agrees to patrol a section of highway and clean up any litter that accumulates. For this, they receive their name on a roadside sign that says something like "Adopt-a-highway program: this section sponsored by the KKK". In the end, the court ruled that yes, the KKK had a 1st amendment right to participate. This opinion piece gives a typical response to that ruling.
Freedom of speech is something we've got in most western countries... Nazi-stuff isn't forbidden in my country (Norway), but acting on rasicm is (that includes saying things).
So you have freedom of speech, but you can't "say things" that "act on racism". It sounds to me like you don't understand what freedom of speech is.
I beleive the freedom to opress people as you talk about is not a real freedom at all. Why should one really have the right to opress other peoples freedom?
So here we get to the heart of the matter... you're assuming that my right to say "jews are inferior" (which I don't believe BTW) somehow infringes upon their "freedom". But which of their freedoms is supposedly infringed? How is saying something like that oppressing anybody?
(3) Creationism and the banning of evolution in schoolbooks? I think by now the USA has the worst schoolbooks in the world, AFAIK it's the only country in the world that allows creationism in it's schools.
I'm curious about how you're able to form an opinion about the relative quality of the US's schoolbooks... have you compared the US's schoolbooks to those from several other countries?
Well, only if you follow the "watch what I say, not what I do" rule.
Wow... you completely missed my point, didn't you? You're so blinded by your own paradigm that you fail to even concede that someone else might have a different point of view than yours.
Because certain people are purposefully ignorant about computers.
Moreover, I think some of them take this ignorance as a mark of pride. Being able to say "computers and I don't get along" gives them something to relate to other people with, similar to "did you see 'Survivor' last night?", but more universal. Strangely, when they find that their ignorance is something that helps them relate to people, they tend to foster and exaggerate it.
Slashdot Mirror
Again: what's so special about 0 and 100? In day-to-day life, I don't really care what the freezing point of pure water is. All I know is that if the thermometer is below N, then it's really cold out, and if it's above N', it's really hot, etc. Ascribing any significance to the exact values of N and N' is pointless and -- dare I say -- unscientific.
Not to mention that 1 deg of change in C is equal to 1 deg of change in K, the SI unit for temperature, which makes Celsius far more practical a unit of measurement to any scientist than Fahrenheit will ever be.
So why not work in Kelvin in the first place?
Having said that, I can understand your resistance to change though...
I think you misunderstood my position. I don't really care which system is used. I'm used to Farenheit, but I can adapt to Celsius quickly. My complaint is with people who say that Celsius is somehow "better" or "more intuitive", when in reality both are just arbitrary scales.
I fail to see how the phase changes of water being calibrated to (32,212) degrees is any better or worse than having them at (0,100). They're just arbitrary values in either case (unless you're trying to ascribe some numerological significance to them...).
Now, if there was a ubiquitous formula that was made simpler by the fact that water freezes at 0 instead of 32 (e.g. you can drop a constant term), then I would buy that Celsius is better for scientific research. But until you can show me one...
And Fahrenheit is a scale where the zero point is attained by mixing equal parts of water, ice, and salt, and the phase changes of water are at 32 (freezing) and 212 (boiling). So it is no more arbitrary than Celsius.
OBTW: ever heard of the Kelvin scale? Or does that not have "scientific uses"?
Too bad you didn't keep watching. The Vorlons are the bad guys.
But did they really have a good enough story for a feature film, or were they banking on fanboys alone?
That's a good point... probably would've been a disappointment, because there's not really much they could do with only a couple hours.
I'm convinced of it because I spent three years working for a non-US company (in the US). When you spend most of your day speaking English with non-native speakers, you become more accepting of nonstandard (English) grammar. More than once, I've found myself phrasing things in the way that a Russian colleague of mine does.
I'm afraid you're the one who's confused. "Evolution" doesn't signify an increase in organization and sophistication. It signifies a process of refinement or adjustment to new environments. In some cases, this means an increase in sophistication (e.g. when the environment is static), but in others it means a decrease in sophistication (typically when the environment is dynamic).
It seems to me that English has been going through a few decades of decreasing sophistication, as it takes the place of French as the international language of choice. As more and more non-native English speakers use the language, its useful vocabulary will shrink and its grammar will become more flexible. And so English will evolve from a language primarily used by the English and their (former) colonies into a world language.
As my French teacher told me: learning French is easy... it mostly looks just like misspelled English.
I take it you're rich then...
Fo' shizzy mah nizzy.
I don't envy someone with such poor grammar either.
I can't speak about Maroon 5, as I've never heard them, but there almost certainly is a plot by the labels to push crap. What other explanation is there for Ashlee Simpson?
Wow... you really skewered that strawman. Bravo.
Just to point you on the right track: making a credible threat against a specific person is a whole different ballgame than making vague derogatory statements about a group of people. But nice try anyway...
Oh come now, I can believe that the differences between the European countries is maybe 2 or 3 times greater than the differences between the US states, but a whole order of magnitude? That's really pushing it...
you're assuming that my right to say "jews are inferior" (which I don't believe BTW) somehow infringes upon their "freedom". But which of their freedoms is supposedly infringed? How is saying something like that oppressing anybody?
jez9999 replied (emphasis mine):
Incitement to racial/religious hatrid? Leading directly to others moving to the same opinion, perhaps violence being carried out on Jews, and ultimately, the tyranny of the majority causing anti-Jew candidates to be elected into government, which opens up a whole new ballpark of oppression...
All of which is potential oppression only. Making the statement is not oppressive. If (and it's a big if) it's followed up by action, then it's a problem, but not until.
Ultimately, there are (at least) two ways to counter this kind of speech. One is to suppress it (as the Europeans have done). The other is to counter it with more speech (as the Americans do). As a wise man once said, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". It seems to me that the European "solution" is the lazy way out. They're not willing to pay the price of eternal vigilance, so they don't get all of the freedom either. And of course, they then rationalize their loss of freedom as something that wasn't important anyway... However, given their history I suppose that that makes sense.
Yes, they would. There was a recent case here that reached the Supreme Court regarding whether the KKK (a white supremacist group that was responsible for the killings of many blacks, mostly during the 50's and 60's) could participate in a highway litter cleanup project. Basically, the group agrees to patrol a section of highway and clean up any litter that accumulates. For this, they receive their name on a roadside sign that says something like "Adopt-a-highway program: this section sponsored by the KKK". In the end, the court ruled that yes, the KKK had a 1st amendment right to participate. This opinion piece gives a typical response to that ruling.
So you have freedom of speech, but you can't "say things" that "act on racism". It sounds to me like you don't understand what freedom of speech is.
I beleive the freedom to opress people as you talk about is not a real freedom at all. Why should one really have the right to opress other peoples freedom?
So here we get to the heart of the matter... you're assuming that my right to say "jews are inferior" (which I don't believe BTW) somehow infringes upon their "freedom". But which of their freedoms is supposedly infringed? How is saying something like that oppressing anybody?
I'm curious about how you're able to form an opinion about the relative quality of the US's schoolbooks... have you compared the US's schoolbooks to those from several other countries?
In any case, the US isn't the only place where there have been efforts to replace evolution with creationism.
Wow... you completely missed my point, didn't you? You're so blinded by your own paradigm that you fail to even concede that someone else might have a different point of view than yours.
Strangely enough, this holds in reverse if you sed s/Dean/Bush/.
I had some problems too, but checking "allow scripts to change images" (under prefs->web features->advanced) solved my problem.
Moreover, I think some of them take this ignorance as a mark of pride. Being able to say "computers and I don't get along" gives them something to relate to other people with, similar to "did you see 'Survivor' last night?", but more universal. Strangely, when they find that their ignorance is something that helps them relate to people, they tend to foster and exaggerate it.