...of course, is that basically everything Mr. Brittanica pointed out about Hamilton has already been fixed on his article. Does an army of Brittanica editors fix Brittanica articles moments after someone points them out?
Read it in the paper this morning. "The index is a composite of indicators such as the growth of venture capital funding, number of new start-ups, research and development spending, percentage of workers in high-tech fields, number of technology companies and percentage of people with college degrees."
And as the owner of a venture-capital-less internet small business in Texas with no college degree, I find the survey a poor indicator of technology in a state - especially coming from a company that can't even keep their server online.
In my house growing up (I'm 24), we had a very old Encyclopedia (World Book). Get this: it was from 1964.
Let that sink in for a second.
Some tidbits from what I remember of it:
The article on space travel had diagrams of a theoretical trip to Mars...and a theoretical trip to the Moon.
Richard Nixon's article was about half a column of text, mostly about his tenure as Vice President.
The list of U.S. Presidents went up to #36 (Lyndon B. Johnson).
There was a lengthy article on John F. Kennedy, but very little on his assassination (had to go to print quickly).
The encyclopedia was filled with interesting information about places like Bechuanaland and East Pakistan.
Among the newest vehicles listed at the Automobile article included the Edsel and a weird concept car that looked like the one Homer designed for his brother.
A very nonsubstansive article on computers (illustrating the long history from Enigma to ENIAC.
And so on, you get the picture.
The irony is that I dove into these articles. They were amazing and even my little noggin at the time understood that I was looking into the past to a time when this would have been the latest, greatest thing to my parents. I really wish I had them now (my parents probably have them boxed up somewhere).
One thing worthy of note: the script in the logo for the words "San Andreas" is in that faux-English "newspaper-title" font that is popular among Latinos who put it on the back of their pickup trucks (often along with a decal of the virgin Mary - I don't get it either) and what not. Dunno if that means anything...
You recommend the M113: a 40+ year old APC designed shortly after the Korean War. The thing is barely even armed, with a partly machine gun to defend itself with.
You also recommend the M551 Sheridan: a light tank that was designed as a reconnaissance platform and was a dismal failure (it was plagued with problems throughout its development - the antitank missiles launched from the gun tubes didn't work properly). It was quickly replaced by M60s that did a far better job despite not being designed for reconnoitering at all.
But, under your plan, we would keep these very obsolete machines and not use the very sturdy and reliable M2s. I grant you, the Bradley is not a perfect machine; no weapon in the U.S.'s arsenal is. It's still far more valuable than upkeep on 40-year-old weapons.
By the way, on the announcements page this morning, it was explicitly said, "Please, do not tell too many people about this, our current server cannot handle the extra load." So, uh, thanks all you Slashdotters... ^^;;;
Re:This is great and all...
on
Your Own Mecha
·
· Score: 1
Oh, I dunno. It already looks like a Guntank to me...
Slashdot Mirror
...of course, is that basically everything Mr. Brittanica pointed out about Hamilton has already been fixed on his article. Does an army of Brittanica editors fix Brittanica articles moments after someone points them out?
Read it in the paper this morning. "The index is a composite of indicators such as the growth of venture capital funding, number of new start-ups, research and development spending, percentage of workers in high-tech fields, number of technology companies and percentage of people with college degrees."
And as the owner of a venture-capital-less internet small business in Texas with no college degree, I find the survey a poor indicator of technology in a state - especially coming from a company that can't even keep their server online.
How you say? I fart in your general direction.
Holy crap! It's a Motoslave!
I'll see that and raise you.
In my house growing up (I'm 24), we had a very old Encyclopedia (World Book). Get this: it was from 1964.
Let that sink in for a second.
Some tidbits from what I remember of it:
And so on, you get the picture.
The irony is that I dove into these articles. They were amazing and even my little noggin at the time understood that I was looking into the past to a time when this would have been the latest, greatest thing to my parents. I really wish I had them now (my parents probably have them boxed up somewhere).
An official site is up (but no content yet):
http://www.rockstargames.com/sanandreas/
One thing worthy of note: the script in the logo for the words "San Andreas" is in that faux-English "newspaper-title" font that is popular among Latinos who put it on the back of their pickup trucks (often along with a decal of the virgin Mary - I don't get it either) and what not. Dunno if that means anything...
This is the real big news right here. Forget about number of songs sold. The management is leaving in droves and there are mass layoffs.
If the company goes under, just how useful is having paid reams of money for monthly access to a no-longer-existant database?
Jeez, dude. Do you know anything about APCs?
You recommend the M113: a 40+ year old APC designed shortly after the Korean War. The thing is barely even armed, with a partly machine gun to defend itself with.
You also recommend the M551 Sheridan: a light tank that was designed as a reconnaissance platform and was a dismal failure (it was plagued with problems throughout its development - the antitank missiles launched from the gun tubes didn't work properly). It was quickly replaced by M60s that did a far better job despite not being designed for reconnoitering at all.
But, under your plan, we would keep these very obsolete machines and not use the very sturdy and reliable M2s. I grant you, the Bradley is not a perfect machine; no weapon in the U.S.'s arsenal is. It's still far more valuable than upkeep on 40-year-old weapons.
It didn't take long for some to trot out the usual arguments about Wikipedia: "How do they keep out the trolls and kiddies?" etc.
Wikipedia has spent a lot of time outlining those very questions on their Replies to Common Objections page. Or, if all of you hose the very delicate servers, here's the Google cache version.
By the way, on the announcements page this morning, it was explicitly said, "Please, do not tell too many people about this, our current server cannot handle the extra load." So, uh, thanks all you Slashdotters... ^^;;;
Oh, I dunno. It already looks like a Guntank to me...