Gunlaying and guidance-systems. Face it, military work down on Earth prompted the development of most of those technologies, because the needs of warfare are greater than the needs of spacefaring. Sad but true right now.
I'd have guessed so based on WWII alone, though Cyrenaica would be a strong contender too -- but Egypt has continued to fight wars. That's desert, a mine laid in the desert is not as likely to be discovered as over in Asia where they're all in fields.
The microchip was invented by a British scientist at the Ministry of Defence in 1952. It was first built by scientists at Texas Instruments and Fairchild Semiconductor, independently, in 1958. Nothing to do with Apollo. Technically a government's money in the inventing phase, but nothing to do with -- and way before -- Apollo.
Yes, but America was a major Allied player due to her industry. Her interest and activity clearly lay in a British victory. So first she sold Britain weapons and other supplies for cash, then for credit, then for market concessions, and finally for island bases. When Britain had nothing left she started lend-lease to keep her going. She didn't commit her own troops until there was no alternative.
I don't know, as I said to another poster, I think Britain was one of the higher spots in the swamp of humanity, if you want to put it that way. The concept of fair play didn't just apply to the golf-course with them for a long part of their history. But I agree with you that nations on the whole are in a Hobbesian state of nature: mired in violence and corruption.
I didn't say Europe had the moral high ground. If there's any country that did, apart from the little backwaters that touched nothing and did not risk their virtue, I think only Britain could be considered to have the moral high ground in the past few centuries. But I'm sure many will disagree.
Not that I disagree with you; the US government's economists are cleverer than the Chinese government's. Regardless, this is what countries who own the reserve currency often have done.
Moral high ground? Would that be after stooping to the level of the USSR in playing third-world countries like pawns -- the CIA coups in Iran or Guatemala in the early fifties? After backstabbing her allies at Suez a few years later? Or after encouraging the Hungarians that same year? Or were you thinking back to the World War -- and the wonderful economic timing of joining it two years late, when her last ally was finally bankrupt?
Come to think of it, I can't remember any instance where the US had the moral high ground since its revolution. Sure, if you compare it to the Soviet Union, it had the moral high ground, but that's not much of a comparison, is it?
This isn't a dig at the US, it's a decent country. But far too much of its propaganda is still believed, probably because it's top nation.
Right. Mine was far simpler, though on the plus side it didn't need a browser plugin. Technically you shouldn't have been able to get the page's properties like current URL and length, width from a different JavaScript domain. I used some hack to be able to get them, so I'm sure my code wouldn't even be possible today for security reasons.
Those were the days when a test for NS4 was still something you had to do, though not without dread...
NoScript also blocks flash, and has done for years, without needing to block javascript as well. As to playing youtube videos, I already play them in mplayer, which gives me all the benefits of a real video player -- fullscreen, speedup/slowdown, pause, etc:
Seriously. I'm not the brightest spark in the wire, but I had an idea for this 10 years ago, and even an implementation limited to a small online fan community. It never took off because the community essentially imploded and died. It used some clever JavaScript, that's about all I remember about it. These people have nothing to complain about, this idea has probably been considered by thousands and their implementation just happened to come second in the contest.
It's not a translation, you fool. I do hate it when people go about correcting others without taking the time to find out what's wrong.
Crown is the correct term, as it is a name of an English currency, now defunct. However, crowns were in use until the 60s. (For something you might recognise, remember that line in some Van Morrison song about half-a-crown?) Just as the correct term for the Hungarian forint is florin, as that is also an English name.
Just to recap: proper names that have equivalents in your target language, like "Sweden" or "crown" should be rendered with that term when speaking or writing the target language.
So why not abbreviate you->u, to->2; or why not just switch to shorthand? You evidently draw the line somewhere, and you may think it's at capital letters, but others would think it's at arrogance.
Serves as a nice filter for me too -- people with your arrogance aren't my first choice to have interesting discussions with.
You're confusing two issues. The inexorable trend of history so far has been towards more freedom and less privacy. In 50 years you'll have very little recognisable privacy by today's standards, and volumes more freedom. I know the two are easy to confuse, but think about it.
I think this youtube video is highly relevant (no, it's not a rickroll): WWII Pilots - Armstrong, Miller, Mitchell & Webb. It takes a typical RAF scene, but there is something modern about the language of 2 of the pilots. Watch it, it's well worth it.
The point? Literacy may be on the up, but precise modes of expression are falling by the wayside. You only have to read a few books written a hundred years ago and today about characters in similar classes and situations to tell.
I don't know how many people I speak for, but I don't give a toss about Pidgey. Fight your battles if you will; I think you'll find most people could care less whether there is a Wikipedia entry for Pidgey.
Yep. The top stories on Fox seem to be this thing and "Man Kills Daughter, Mother-in-Law, Self, Injures Wife". On the BBC News site (which is refreshingly clean, incidentally) this gets a line as "Web attack blogger blames Russia". It is the top story in their Tech section though, with a montage of the facebook, google and twitter logos.
I consume most of my news as RSS these days, but my feeds are the BBC's feeds, because they are still the best mainstream source to trust. And they are the largest news-gathering organisation in the world, so they actually get news, not just reprocess it. To top it off, they're funded on an odd but stable and non-partisan model, so in many ways the British TV watching public is paying for my quality news. I don't mind.;)
What a gross slander. Correct me if I'm wrong but it was the aboriginals in America who went about slaughtering each other and their natural environment. Today the Europeans have displaced the aboriginals in America and all that has stopped.
The director of one of my favourite action flicks -- Where Eagles Dare, a brilliant film with two great actors, Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood, plus a good cast of British character actors -- is now... a plumber. Brian Hutton, thank you for making another film with Richard Burton and Mary Ure in it based on an Alistair MacLean screenplay, and for doing it so well. You'll not be forgotten.
MI5 is internal security, MI6 is the one most like the CIA/Deuxieme Bureau/KGB.
Having said that, there was an interesting article recently on the BBC quoting ex MI6 chiefs who mentioned the remarkable amount of help they received for symbolic or no compensation by ordinary people, Britons and foreigners alike, who carried out all sorts of difficult and sometimes dangerous activities voluntarily, sometimes for no more than "a bottle of wine at Christmas". It seems their main motivation was patriotism and/or sheer inspiration by glamourous (though obviously inaccurate) portrayals of spying by the likes of Ian Fleming or Len Deighton or others, added to which a liking of Western values in the case of foreigners.
I've been trying to do this last thing a lot! You see, I have slight myopia, not enough to warrant contacts or glasses, and my vision is fine to pass the driving test in Washington state -- but I would like to be able to get full 20/20 at least when focussing on a specific object sometimes. I've long thought that this decoupling of focus and vergence is the answer, but I didn't know if it was possible. I occasionally practise, but without knowing that it's possible, I haven't been very regular about it.
Couldn't run a business if their lives depended on it! In case you've failed to notice, very few businesses that have run for over two hundred years have not failed, and the US definitely fits that category. In fact, the US has historically been extremely shrewd at furthering its interests -- and the proof is all around us, in its success.
By the way, you say you're all for cleaner and greener, then in the very next sentence you say you're against greater tax burderns. Do you think that the solutions to energy efficiency are going to turn up through private research? That may have been true a hundred years ago, but not any more.
The whole point of this thread is the concern that this tax would hurt the poor more than the rich. So it's just taking money from you (the rich) and giving it to the family of four down the street (the poor). So if you are concerned that it's an unfair tax, then of course money has to be taken from you and given to the poor! Be logical about it.
Still the egg. But if you were to ask which came first, the egg or the life-form, then fortunately we could answer: the life-form. Asexual reproduction precedes sexual reproduction.
Slashdot Mirror
Ouch, can you say "out of touch" even more loudly?
Gunlaying and guidance-systems. Face it, military work down on Earth prompted the development of most of those technologies, because the needs of warfare are greater than the needs of spacefaring. Sad but true right now.
I'd have guessed so based on WWII alone, though Cyrenaica would be a strong contender too -- but Egypt has continued to fight wars. That's desert, a mine laid in the desert is not as likely to be discovered as over in Asia where they're all in fields.
Oops, I got a reading on the ol' meter here:
The microchip was invented by a British scientist at the Ministry of Defence in 1952. It was first built by scientists at Texas Instruments and Fairchild Semiconductor, independently, in 1958. Nothing to do with Apollo. Technically a government's money in the inventing phase, but nothing to do with -- and way before -- Apollo.
Yes, but America was a major Allied player due to her industry. Her interest and activity clearly lay in a British victory. So first she sold Britain weapons and other supplies for cash, then for credit, then for market concessions, and finally for island bases. When Britain had nothing left she started lend-lease to keep her going. She didn't commit her own troops until there was no alternative.
I don't know, as I said to another poster, I think Britain was one of the higher spots in the swamp of humanity, if you want to put it that way. The concept of fair play didn't just apply to the golf-course with them for a long part of their history. But I agree with you that nations on the whole are in a Hobbesian state of nature: mired in violence and corruption.
I didn't say Europe had the moral high ground. If there's any country that did, apart from the little backwaters that touched nothing and did not risk their virtue, I think only Britain could be considered to have the moral high ground in the past few centuries. But I'm sure many will disagree.
What would be the point of that?
Not that I disagree with you; the US government's economists are cleverer than the Chinese government's. Regardless, this is what countries who own the reserve currency often have done.
Moral high ground? Would that be after stooping to the level of the USSR in playing third-world countries like pawns -- the CIA coups in Iran or Guatemala in the early fifties? After backstabbing her allies at Suez a few years later? Or after encouraging the Hungarians that same year? Or were you thinking back to the World War -- and the wonderful economic timing of joining it two years late, when her last ally was finally bankrupt?
Come to think of it, I can't remember any instance where the US had the moral high ground since its revolution. Sure, if you compare it to the Soviet Union, it had the moral high ground, but that's not much of a comparison, is it?
This isn't a dig at the US, it's a decent country. But far too much of its propaganda is still believed, probably because it's top nation.
Right. Mine was far simpler, though on the plus side it didn't need a browser plugin. Technically you shouldn't have been able to get the page's properties like current URL and length, width from a different JavaScript domain. I used some hack to be able to get them, so I'm sure my code wouldn't even be possible today for security reasons.
Those were the days when a test for NS4 was still something you had to do, though not without dread...
NoScript also blocks flash, and has done for years, without needing to block javascript as well. As to playing youtube videos, I already play them in mplayer, which gives me all the benefits of a real video player -- fullscreen, speedup/slowdown, pause, etc:
mplayer `youtube-dl -g <youtube-video-url>`
Seriously. I'm not the brightest spark in the wire, but I had an idea for this 10 years ago, and even an implementation limited to a small online fan community. It never took off because the community essentially imploded and died. It used some clever JavaScript, that's about all I remember about it. These people have nothing to complain about, this idea has probably been considered by thousands and their implementation just happened to come second in the contest.
It's not a translation, you fool. I do hate it when people go about correcting others without taking the time to find out what's wrong.
Crown is the correct term, as it is a name of an English currency, now defunct. However, crowns were in use until the 60s. (For something you might recognise, remember that line in some Van Morrison song about half-a-crown?) Just as the correct term for the Hungarian forint is florin, as that is also an English name.
Just to recap: proper names that have equivalents in your target language, like "Sweden" or "crown" should be rendered with that term when speaking or writing the target language.
So why not abbreviate you->u, to->2; or why not just switch to shorthand? You evidently draw the line somewhere, and you may think it's at capital letters, but others would think it's at arrogance.
Serves as a nice filter for me too -- people with your arrogance aren't my first choice to have interesting discussions with.
You're confusing two issues. The inexorable trend of history so far has been towards more freedom and less privacy. In 50 years you'll have very little recognisable privacy by today's standards, and volumes more freedom. I know the two are easy to confuse, but think about it.
I think this youtube video is highly relevant (no, it's not a rickroll): WWII Pilots - Armstrong, Miller, Mitchell & Webb. It takes a typical RAF scene, but there is something modern about the language of 2 of the pilots. Watch it, it's well worth it.
The point? Literacy may be on the up, but precise modes of expression are falling by the wayside. You only have to read a few books written a hundred years ago and today about characters in similar classes and situations to tell.
I don't know how many people I speak for, but I don't give a toss about Pidgey. Fight your battles if you will; I think you'll find most people could care less whether there is a Wikipedia entry for Pidgey.
Yep. The top stories on Fox seem to be this thing and "Man Kills Daughter, Mother-in-Law, Self, Injures Wife". On the BBC News site (which is refreshingly clean, incidentally) this gets a line as "Web attack blogger blames Russia". It is the top story in their Tech section though, with a montage of the facebook, google and twitter logos.
;)
I consume most of my news as RSS these days, but my feeds are the BBC's feeds, because they are still the best mainstream source to trust. And they are the largest news-gathering organisation in the world, so they actually get news, not just reprocess it. To top it off, they're funded on an odd but stable and non-partisan model, so in many ways the British TV watching public is paying for my quality news. I don't mind.
What a gross slander. Correct me if I'm wrong but it was the aboriginals in America who went about slaughtering each other and their natural environment. Today the Europeans have displaced the aboriginals in America and all that has stopped.
The director of one of my favourite action flicks -- Where Eagles Dare, a brilliant film with two great actors, Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood, plus a good cast of British character actors -- is now... a plumber. Brian Hutton, thank you for making another film with Richard Burton and Mary Ure in it based on an Alistair MacLean screenplay, and for doing it so well. You'll not be forgotten.
MI5 is internal security, MI6 is the one most like the CIA/Deuxieme Bureau/KGB.
Having said that, there was an interesting article recently on the BBC quoting ex MI6 chiefs who mentioned the remarkable amount of help they received for symbolic or no compensation by ordinary people, Britons and foreigners alike, who carried out all sorts of difficult and sometimes dangerous activities voluntarily, sometimes for no more than "a bottle of wine at Christmas". It seems their main motivation was patriotism and/or sheer inspiration by glamourous (though obviously inaccurate) portrayals of spying by the likes of Ian Fleming or Len Deighton or others, added to which a liking of Western values in the case of foreigners.
I've been trying to do this last thing a lot! You see, I have slight myopia, not enough to warrant contacts or glasses, and my vision is fine to pass the driving test in Washington state -- but I would like to be able to get full 20/20 at least when focussing on a specific object sometimes. I've long thought that this decoupling of focus and vergence is the answer, but I didn't know if it was possible. I occasionally practise, but without knowing that it's possible, I haven't been very regular about it.
Couldn't run a business if their lives depended on it! In case you've failed to notice, very few businesses that have run for over two hundred years have not failed, and the US definitely fits that category. In fact, the US has historically been extremely shrewd at furthering its interests -- and the proof is all around us, in its success.
By the way, you say you're all for cleaner and greener, then in the very next sentence you say you're against greater tax burderns. Do you think that the solutions to energy efficiency are going to turn up through private research? That may have been true a hundred years ago, but not any more.
The whole point of this thread is the concern that this tax would hurt the poor more than the rich. So it's just taking money from you (the rich) and giving it to the family of four down the street (the poor). So if you are concerned that it's an unfair tax, then of course money has to be taken from you and given to the poor! Be logical about it.
Still the egg. But if you were to ask which came first, the egg or the life-form, then fortunately we could answer: the life-form. Asexual reproduction precedes sexual reproduction.