Oh, a pretty plot on wikipedia says something. It must be true.
Never mind that the link given as a source for the graph doesn't actually have any numbers at all. Odd. It does have a graph, which itself doesn't give any sources either.
Let me try something revolutionary and enter "abundance of elements in the earths crust" into google and see what happens. Just for the sake of the argument let's skip wikipedia and its copies and the first link that I get is
http://www.science.co.il/Ptelements.asp?s=Earth
Which is the first link I looked at before submitting the previous post. Check it out: Gold more abundant than Lead. Odd, eh? No source given.
Second link is
http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/CrustAbundance.html
which appears to agree with the picture in wikipedia. And it's the only one I can find that actually cites a source: Mathematica's "ElementData[]" function. Makes me wonder what program was used to make the plot in the USGS article that was then apparently copied (uh, "vectorized") for wikipedia...
The next link that I get is
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/abund.htm
which doesn't have crust abundances. The closest thing they have is abundance in the ocean with Pb:Au ~3.
I'm skipping answers.com links, as they are about as useful as asking some guy at the bus stop.
Britannica.com gives me the wild run-around without ever presenting me with a table with actual numbers (or even sources). I'm guessing I need to pay for it to get that service.
Next I find
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/elemental-abundance-in-earths-crust.html
which merely copies the plot from Wikipedia. It does give a table with numbers (unsourced) which does not appear to contain Lead at all. Stranger and stranger.
My next link is
http://www.experiencefestival.com/abundance_of_the_chemical_elements_-_abundance_of_elements_in_earths_crust
but not only do I not see a table or anything similarly useful, a quick glance down the side-bar at the left makes me doubt this as a reference.
I admit to being baffled - there's wildy varying numbers out there and the only references I find are to mathematica (which, in turn, doesn't give me a reference at all on their web-page). nndc, lbl, iupac.org - none of my standard sources appears to have that data.
At this point I'm not willing to accept ANY of the above as valid numbers (including the one that I happened to see on my first quick check) until someone points me to a credible source: who determined which number how?
Your comment doesn't make sense. If hydrogen is the only fusion reaction that produces energy then stars would collapse after enough helium accumulates in the core. That they actually collapse when fusion of iron begins indicates that iron is the first element that requires more energy to fuse than it produces.
Of course: denial of the reality you can see for yourself, by yourself, with your own eyes - because it conflicts with some absurd, childish dogma somewhere - is one of the hallmarks of religious people (= liars).
No honest person can possibly be religious.
I'm religious, and I believe things that I cannot prove to be true[1]. That is honest.
No, it isn't.
Of course nobody said a thing about "believing" or "proving" anything. Of course constructing and fighting strawmen is very much dishonest. Of course religious people have no conception of honest discourse (or honest anything).
After all, in California for instance, they have whole theme parks dedicated to imaginary lands and creatures (think King Kong). What's the difference really?
The difference between an "epic fantasy story" and an "epic fantasy story that is claimed to be true" is that the former is entertainment, the latter is merely a lie.
Nobody is claiming that King Kong is real.
Of course the relentless attempt to deny the distinction between fact and fiction is exactly what make religion a) dangerous, b) insulting and c) distasteful to all honest (=non-religious) people.
I wonder whether they're doing this blindly, or if there's more smarts behind the scenes. If their TCP implementation kept a cache of recent final congestion window sizes by IP address, they could legitimately start off the next connection with the value from the last one. So, having discovered a path that's not dropping big bursts of packets, they could legitimately start fast. If they're just doing it the dumb way, starting fast every time, that's going to choke some part of the net under heavy load.
That strikes me as still-kinda-eigthies-thinking. I guess the question is what your assumption for an unknown segment of network is: If you assume that all parts of the net are congested most of the time, then you'll want to do a fast start up only on those segments that you know can handle it (doesn't have to be an individual IP - If my ISP buffers alright and you can reach it alright then it doesn't matter how many folks are sitting downstream from them - it becomes their problem.) If, on the other hand, you have the expectation that most packets on most of the net are going to be just fine (for whatever reason; even if by sheer brute force buffering and clever back-end algorithms that figure it all out after the fact) then it makes sense to do fast start with unknown clients and omit it only on those found NOT to be able to handle it. Kinda a glass-half-full way of looking at it.
These days I'd wager that the vast (VAST!) majority of packets are part of ongoing streams - streaming Netflix over the net, torrenting the collected porn of the 80ies, that kind of thing. Which means I'm as sure as I can possibly be of something I haven't researched that the performance of the net is only in the most marginal way dependent on startup behaviour around individual connections any more. (Or better when/where it is, it is probably due to the 100 tcp connections that need to be established to view a single web page; fix that and the question of startup behaviour will just go away. Incidently, MS'es CHM concept was a step very much in the right direction...)
And what, exactly, makes you call this an "actual" explanation, given that it's composed of just as much thin air as all the other ones?
The video clearly shows a very bright spot at the top of the exhaust trail. Jet engines don't burn bright. They don't burn at all. They're dark. Unless this particular jet was on fire in a rather surprisingly controlled way.
Of course it is possible that sunlight just so happenes to glint off the underside of a plane that just so happenes to be polished the right way and that just so happenes to be oriented such that the "glint" remains "glinting" for many (15?) seconds at a time. Just as it's possible that the contrail of that same jet just so happens to resemble a rocket launch. Lots of things are possible.
But while it's possible that a jet plane might appear like a Polaris rocket, it is of course certain that a Polaris rocket appears like a Polaris rocket.
No they didn't. Yet so many people think they did. It's odd.
Yes, they did.
Linking to a web-page that has no numbers newer than 2007 (and the latest "news" on which talk about a preliminary plan outlined in February) isn't goingto make reality go away.
Turns out what I posted was more of a paraphrase than a quote - I was connecting this passage:
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress
with this one, that actually occurs a few paragraphs before:
One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
But the one that really encapsulated my thinking (that made me respond in the first place) is this one:
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
The Law exists in order to dispense Justice. Therefore, every Just man does not only have the right, but the obligation to oppose unjust law.
(M.L King, Letter from a Jail in Birmingham, from the top of my head since I can't seem to find that on the net anywhere. Probably a matter of copyright or some such.)
... but I think this is why this is a non-story. ANYBODY with access to your hardware owns you. That's always been a given. If I can touch your bare silicon and metal, then I can put all kinds of things in all kinds of places for all kinds of reasons. Big fat Duh.
Maybe this is news to the public, but I'm not sure it is "news for nerds".
If we are actually going to go there and start mining it with private companies then ownership will HAVE to be decided first. Otherwise it is a free for all, might makes right, who has the most missiles type of deal.
What AC said above: even if Moon was solid, 24k gold, it'd not make economical sense to mine it there. End of story.
No, not end of story by a long shot.
Mining gold on the moon makes economic sense exactly if it results in gain in excess of the original investment. How many dollars can you charge for an ounce of, not gold, but gold from the moon? The gold market is already based strictly on what people think is valuable. The price of gold has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the price of mining gold.
Does it even have to be gold? How about a speck of genuine moon rock (in a nice clear plastic cast) - yours for only... $59.99? How many slashdotters would buy such a thing? What would it cost to get, say, a couple kg of that back to earth? A billion dollars? That's the price of a nice oil rig. In other words: that's the kind of money that is already available and people are already expending it because they expect a decent return on that investment.
You may want to be just a shade more careful with calling things economically infeasable.
Not really - there's a surprising number of people who don't get the difference and use the words interchangeably.
Or I shouldn't say "don't get" - more like they never thought about it.
When someone asks "how long will this project take" and I say "about three months" everybody "gets" that I am not very precise here. But my prediction may well be accurate. But when I respond "498.3 work hours", then everybody "gets" that I am giving more precision, but that my prediction is now rather unlikely to be accurate. This is entirely understood by everybody and usually doesn't need to be said.
But yet when you tell your boss "about three months" he will invariably ask you to give him more digits, for reasons not quite fully understood by mere humans.
[...] it does lack a number of very important features for professional work. But it's perfectly competent within it's limitations. I don't use it, I use Photoshop because I need some of those important features
For over ten years now, whenever GIMP is compared to Photoshop somewhere on the net, invariably someone comes out of the woodwork claiming that GIMP lacks "certain professional features". Every time, I inquire politely what these features might be. What is it that "professionals" do or need that the GIMP can not do or provide?
I have never gotten an answer. Not once.
The one thing that is invariably mentioned is that Photoshop somehow allows you to work in a cmyk space. Which is of course the mark of the UNprofessional hack, since real professionals worry about light. Composition. Art. And leave the technology details of the print process to a bit of code that does the cmyk separation after the fact (which the GIMP has been doing for many years).
I have thus given up. I have concluded that those who claim some kind of "missing professional features" are just tools that have been duped into shelling out major dollars for an image editor; with capabilities that they could have gotten for free.
You too, as usual, claim some vague "features" that the GIMP is supposedly lacking. Which is a lie, of course: if there were any truth to it you would have mentioned such features to strengthen your point. Which you can't, because you've never actually used the GIMP.
Right now, of course, you're frantically googling in an attempt to find some such features you can then post here in some childish attempt to show me wrong. And of course you will deny having done so. 'Tis par for the course on the internets, I guess.
Google is doing very well these days - they can afford to be the white hat guy.
Wait till their fortunes start to decline. Then we'll shall see what they're truly made of.
Anybody can weather adversity. There's no strength in that, no quality of character to be discerned.
If you truly want to see a man's character, give him power. Give him free reign. Don't try to confine or constrain him, but let him act at his every whim. That's when you learn what someone's made of.
My memory may be failing here, but I seem to recall that M3 had not just found water on the moon (which was widely reported in the press) but a whole bunch of Holmium, Neodymium, Europium - that kind of stuff (which was quite ignored in the press). If I'm remembering this right, then maybe China is handing us the economic lever arm for space colonization.
Though I do think it's extremely sad when I hear parents shouting and swearing at their 2 year old kids when they are crying
When my kid was that age, my wife and I made a point to use Spongebob swear words. Usually in situations that warranted swearing but not quite so badly as to let a real swear word slip.
Something drops on the floor? "Barnacles!" Something doesn't quite fit? "Tartar Sauce!". etc. This was reinforced, of course, by Spongebob and his friends really using these words as real swear words in the show.
For a while, he actually picked that up and when something didn't work he might actually yell "Barnacles" at it.
So what now? We were openly swearing and yelling in front of him. Has the fact that they weren't "real swear words" made a difference anywhere?
Which is why, paradox intended, a person who knows he knows nothing is wise.
No, they aren't. They're retarded.
Someone who imagines they know nothing is as retarded as someone who imagines they know everything. Wisdom cannot possibly be found in either of these simpletons.
Some things are known. Some are not. Some are knowable. Some are not. Some are difficult to figure out, others are obvious. There's a universe of subtlety and complexity there, with all shades of grey from the deepest back to the most brilliant white.
Wisdom is the ability to acknowledge this and find one's way in it. NOT the propensity to deny it.
They've already done brain-scans on people with political affinities. Those who are right-wing show under-developed regions dealing with emotion, those on the left-wing show similar defects in other areas of the brain.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, a pretty plot on wikipedia says something. It must be true.
Never mind that the link given as a source for the graph doesn't actually have any numbers at all. Odd. It does have a graph, which itself doesn't give any sources either.
Let me try something revolutionary and enter "abundance of elements in the earths crust" into google and see what happens. Just for the sake of the argument let's skip wikipedia and its copies and the first link that I get is
http://www.science.co.il/Ptelements.asp?s=Earth
Which is the first link I looked at before submitting the previous post. Check it out: Gold more abundant than Lead. Odd, eh? No source given.
Second link is
http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/CrustAbundance.html
which appears to agree with the picture in wikipedia. And it's the only one I can find that actually cites a source: Mathematica's "ElementData[]" function. Makes me wonder what program was used to make the plot in the USGS article that was then apparently copied (uh, "vectorized") for wikipedia...
The next link that I get is
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/abund.htm
which doesn't have crust abundances. The closest thing they have is abundance in the ocean with Pb:Au ~3.
I'm skipping answers.com links, as they are about as useful as asking some guy at the bus stop.
Britannica.com gives me the wild run-around without ever presenting me with a table with actual numbers (or even sources). I'm guessing I need to pay for it to get that service.
Next I find
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/elemental-abundance-in-earths-crust.html
which merely copies the plot from Wikipedia. It does give a table with numbers (unsourced) which does not appear to contain Lead at all. Stranger and stranger.
My next link is
http://www.experiencefestival.com/abundance_of_the_chemical_elements_-_abundance_of_elements_in_earths_crust
but not only do I not see a table or anything similarly useful, a quick glance down the side-bar at the left makes me doubt this as a reference.
I admit to being baffled - there's wildy varying numbers out there and the only references I find are to mathematica (which, in turn, doesn't give me a reference at all on their web-page). nndc, lbl, iupac.org - none of my standard sources appears to have that data.
At this point I'm not willing to accept ANY of the above as valid numbers (including the one that I happened to see on my first quick check) until someone points me to a credible source: who determined which number how?
"We've perfected the transmutation of the elements! Heavy, lustrous gold can now be alchemically tranformed into LEAD!"
Given that there's more gold than lead in the Earth's crust, that's actually not a bad thing.
The only reason gold costs more than lead is the crazed speculators.
Your comment doesn't make sense. If hydrogen is the only fusion reaction that produces energy then stars would collapse after enough helium accumulates in the core. That they actually collapse when fusion of iron begins indicates that iron is the first element that requires more energy to fuse than it produces.
And Nickel is ... heavier than Iron.
Hummm...
Please restate your objection, expressing all numbers in base-3
You can't equate "honest" and "non-religious".
Yes, I can.
In fact, I just did.
Of course: denial of the reality you can see for yourself, by yourself, with your own eyes - because it conflicts with some absurd, childish dogma somewhere - is one of the hallmarks of religious people (= liars).
No honest person can possibly be religious.
I'm religious, and I believe things that I cannot prove to be true[1]. That is honest.
No, it isn't.
Of course nobody said a thing about "believing" or "proving" anything. Of course constructing and fighting strawmen is very much dishonest. Of course religious people have no conception of honest discourse (or honest anything).
After all, in California for instance, they have whole theme parks dedicated to imaginary lands and creatures (think King Kong). What's the difference really?
The difference between an "epic fantasy story" and an "epic fantasy story that is claimed to be true" is that the former is entertainment, the latter is merely a lie.
Nobody is claiming that King Kong is real.
Of course the relentless attempt to deny the distinction between fact and fiction is exactly what make religion a) dangerous, b) insulting and c) distasteful to all honest (=non-religious) people.
I wonder whether they're doing this blindly, or if there's more smarts behind the scenes. If their TCP implementation kept a cache of recent final congestion window sizes by IP address, they could legitimately start off the next connection with the value from the last one. So, having discovered a path that's not dropping big bursts of packets, they could legitimately start fast. If they're just doing it the dumb way, starting fast every time, that's going to choke some part of the net under heavy load.
That strikes me as still-kinda-eigthies-thinking. I guess the question is what your assumption for an unknown segment of network is: If you assume that all parts of the net are congested most of the time, then you'll want to do a fast start up only on those segments that you know can handle it (doesn't have to be an individual IP - If my ISP buffers alright and you can reach it alright then it doesn't matter how many folks are sitting downstream from them - it becomes their problem.) If, on the other hand, you have the expectation that most packets on most of the net are going to be just fine (for whatever reason; even if by sheer brute force buffering and clever back-end algorithms that figure it all out after the fact) then it makes sense to do fast start with unknown clients and omit it only on those found NOT to be able to handle it. Kinda a glass-half-full way of looking at it.
These days I'd wager that the vast (VAST!) majority of packets are part of ongoing streams - streaming Netflix over the net, torrenting the collected porn of the 80ies, that kind of thing. Which means I'm as sure as I can possibly be of something I haven't researched that the performance of the net is only in the most marginal way dependent on startup behaviour around individual connections any more. (Or better when/where it is, it is probably due to the 100 tcp connections that need to be established to view a single web page; fix that and the question of startup behaviour will just go away. Incidently, MS'es CHM concept was a step very much in the right direction...)
Proving that an advanced degree in photography and tenure do not make you smart?
ftfy
Actual explanation of the event:
And what, exactly, makes you call this an "actual" explanation, given that it's composed of just as much thin air as all the other ones?
The video clearly shows a very bright spot at the top of the exhaust trail. Jet engines don't burn bright. They don't burn at all. They're dark. Unless this particular jet was on fire in a rather surprisingly controlled way.
Of course it is possible that sunlight just so happenes to glint off the underside of a plane that just so happenes to be polished the right way and that just so happenes to be oriented such that the "glint" remains "glinting" for many (15?) seconds at a time. Just as it's possible that the contrail of that same jet just so happens to resemble a rocket launch. Lots of things are possible.
But while it's possible that a jet plane might appear like a Polaris rocket, it is of course certain that a Polaris rocket appears like a Polaris rocket.
Quack, quack...
No they didn't. Yet so many people think they did. It's odd.
Yes, they did.
Linking to a web-page that has no numbers newer than 2007 (and the latest "news" on which talk about a preliminary plan outlined in February) isn't goingto make reality go away.
Ah - my google-fu returned. The thing can indeed be found here: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
Turns out what I posted was more of a paraphrase than a quote - I was connecting this passage:
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress
with this one, that actually occurs a few paragraphs before:
One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
But the one that really encapsulated my thinking (that made me respond in the first place) is this one:
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
As opposed to advanced moral reasoning:
The Law exists in order to dispense Justice. Therefore, every Just man does not only have the right, but the obligation to oppose unjust law.
(M.L King, Letter from a Jail in Birmingham, from the top of my head since I can't seem to find that on the net anywhere. Probably a matter of copyright or some such.)
So here's a question for everyone: could you make it work in a boat?
Yes.
... but I think this is why this is a non-story. ANYBODY with access to your hardware owns you. That's always been a given. If I can touch your bare silicon and metal, then I can put all kinds of things in all kinds of places for all kinds of reasons. Big fat Duh.
Maybe this is news to the public, but I'm not sure it is "news for nerds".
If we are actually going to go there and start mining it with private companies then ownership will HAVE to be decided first. Otherwise it is a free for all, might makes right, who has the most missiles type of deal.
So?
That's how the US was settled.
What AC said above: even if Moon was solid, 24k gold, it'd not make economical sense to mine it there. End of story.
No, not end of story by a long shot.
Mining gold on the moon makes economic sense exactly if it results in gain in excess of the original investment. How many dollars can you charge for an ounce of, not gold, but gold from the moon? The gold market is already based strictly on what people think is valuable. The price of gold has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the price of mining gold.
Does it even have to be gold? How about a speck of genuine moon rock (in a nice clear plastic cast) - yours for only ... $59.99? How many slashdotters would buy such a thing? What would it cost to get, say, a couple kg of that back to earth? A billion dollars? That's the price of a nice oil rig. In other words: that's the kind of money that is already available and people are already expending it because they expect a decent return on that investment.
You may want to be just a shade more careful with calling things economically infeasable.
give me windows 10, or give me Death!
It'll be called "Windows X" of course. To capitalize on the value of the letter X in marketing these days.
Precision != accuracy.
Does that make me a grammar nazi?
Not really - there's a surprising number of people who don't get the difference and use the words interchangeably.
Or I shouldn't say "don't get" - more like they never thought about it.
When someone asks "how long will this project take" and I say "about three months" everybody "gets" that I am not very precise here. But my prediction may well be accurate. But when I respond "498.3 work hours", then everybody "gets" that I am giving more precision, but that my prediction is now rather unlikely to be accurate. This is entirely understood by everybody and usually doesn't need to be said.
But yet when you tell your boss "about three months" he will invariably ask you to give him more digits, for reasons not quite fully understood by mere humans.
[...] it does lack a number of very important features for professional work. But it's perfectly competent within it's limitations. I don't use it, I use Photoshop because I need some of those important features
For over ten years now, whenever GIMP is compared to Photoshop somewhere on the net, invariably someone comes out of the woodwork claiming that GIMP lacks "certain professional features". Every time, I inquire politely what these features might be. What is it that "professionals" do or need that the GIMP can not do or provide?
I have never gotten an answer. Not once.
The one thing that is invariably mentioned is that Photoshop somehow allows you to work in a cmyk space. Which is of course the mark of the UNprofessional hack, since real professionals worry about light. Composition. Art. And leave the technology details of the print process to a bit of code that does the cmyk separation after the fact (which the GIMP has been doing for many years).
I have thus given up. I have concluded that those who claim some kind of "missing professional features" are just tools that have been duped into shelling out major dollars for an image editor; with capabilities that they could have gotten for free.
You too, as usual, claim some vague "features" that the GIMP is supposedly lacking. Which is a lie, of course: if there were any truth to it you would have mentioned such features to strengthen your point. Which you can't, because you've never actually used the GIMP.
Right now, of course, you're frantically googling in an attempt to find some such features you can then post here in some childish attempt to show me wrong. And of course you will deny having done so. 'Tis par for the course on the internets, I guess.
Google is doing very well these days - they can afford to be the white hat guy.
Wait till their fortunes start to decline. Then we'll shall see what they're truly made of .
Anybody can weather adversity. There's no strength in that, no quality of character to be discerned.
If you truly want to see a man's character, give him power. Give him free reign. Don't try to confine or constrain him, but let him act at his every whim. That's when you learn what someone's made of.
My memory may be failing here, but I seem to recall that M3 had not just found water on the moon (which was widely reported in the press) but a whole bunch of Holmium, Neodymium, Europium - that kind of stuff (which was quite ignored in the press). If I'm remembering this right, then maybe China is handing us the economic lever arm for space colonization.
Just thinking out loud here...
Sucks and blows were originally euphemisms for oral sex, specifically homosexual acts. Saying "he sucks" was pretty insulting back in the day.
So when people say "Vista sucks", they're telling me it's a good thing?
I'm confused now.
Though I do think it's extremely sad when I hear parents shouting and swearing at their 2 year old kids when they are crying
When my kid was that age, my wife and I made a point to use Spongebob swear words. Usually in situations that warranted swearing but not quite so badly as to let a real swear word slip.
Something drops on the floor? "Barnacles!" Something doesn't quite fit? "Tartar Sauce!". etc. This was reinforced, of course, by Spongebob and his friends really using these words as real swear words in the show.
For a while, he actually picked that up and when something didn't work he might actually yell "Barnacles" at it.
So what now? We were openly swearing and yelling in front of him. Has the fact that they weren't "real swear words" made a difference anywhere?
[..]
Which is why, paradox intended, a person who knows he knows nothing is wise.
No, they aren't. They're retarded.
Someone who imagines they know nothing is as retarded as someone who imagines they know everything. Wisdom cannot possibly be found in either of these simpletons.
Some things are known. Some are not. Some are knowable. Some are not. Some are difficult to figure out, others are obvious. There's a universe of subtlety and complexity there, with all shades of grey from the deepest back to the most brilliant white.
Wisdom is the ability to acknowledge this and find one's way in it. NOT the propensity to deny it.
They've already done brain-scans on people with political affinities. Those who are right-wing show under-developed regions dealing with emotion, those on the left-wing show similar defects in other areas of the brain.
{citation needed}