Is google sabotaging browsers?
in [General Linux]
|
From: Vwake on 7 Mar 2010 12:48 On Mar 7, 2010 (Sun) at 10:53am -0600 (GMT) John Hasler wrote: > Quite possibly old enough to be your grandfather. My father taught me > to solder when I was a child. I espect that soldering is now > considered too dangerous for anyone under eighteen. Yeah very true. I was once soldering the same electrical wire that was connected to the solder. Luckily I didn't touch it ! V. -- Psychoanalysis is that mental illness for which it regards itself a therapy. -- Karl Kraus
From: General Schvantzkoph on 7 Mar 2010 12:29 On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 08:36:52 -0800, Bill Waddington wrote: > On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 22:28:52 +0530, Vwake <Vwake(a)nospace.net> wrote: > >>On Mar 6, 2010 (Sat) at 6:05pm -0600 (GMT) John Hasler wrote: >> >>> Michael writes: >>>> ...and I first soldered 39 years ago. >>> >>> I first soldered about 55 years ago. >> >>Dude, how old are you? Or are you just kidding? :) > > Hey, show a little respect for the old guy! We youngsters should be > respectful of our elders! > > It was only ~50 years ago for me... > > Bill It's only about 45 years for me, but I am NASA certified (at least I was in the early 70s), do I get extra points for that?
From: Allodoxaphobia on 7 Mar 2010 12:39 On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 08:36:52 -0800, Bill Waddington wrote: > On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 22:28:52 +0530, Vwake <Vwake(a)nospace.net> wrote: >>On Mar 6, 2010 (Sat) at 6:05pm -0600 (GMT) John Hasler wrote: >>> Michael writes: >>>> ...and I first soldered 39 years ago. >>> >>> I first soldered about 55 years ago. >> >>Dude, how old are you? Or are you just kidding? :) > > Hey, show a little respect for the old guy! We youngsters should > be respectful of our elders! > > It was only ~50 years ago for me... This all made me stop and think .... and do some arithmetic. It was 55 years ago that I seriously got into tearing down war surplus equipment and making 'things' suggested in The ARRL Handbook, etc. I still love that smell... Both the heated solder and the surplus electronic gear. Jonesy -- Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux 38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2 * Killfiling google & XXXXbanter.com: jonz.net/ng.htm
From: TJ on 7 Mar 2010 13:26 On 03/07/2010 12:01 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > TJ wrote: >> >> BEING SERIOUS IN THIS POST: >> >> Notbob, you can't trust Wikipedia, either. Anybody can change anything >> there, at any time. Supposedly, it's self-policing, because those who >> know the truth come along and make corrections. Nice idea, but it has >> a basic flaw. >> >> Suppose somebody posts mis-information about a subject. It doesn't >> have to be a lie - but it could be. It may be corrected almost >> immediately - or it could languish for weeks before somebody finds the >> error. Now suppose you access that information during the time the >> error is there. Would you know the difference? Probably not. And then >> you'd go somewhere and cite that information, not knowing that it is >> false. >> >> With Wikipedia, you just don't know. It's a good place to start some >> research, but anything, and I do mean ANYTHING you see there needs to >> be confirmed from independent sources before you accept it as true. >> >> TJ > I tried editing a wiki entry once, to correct an obvious mistake. Quoted > an aircraft engine in bhp and KW. There is a fixed mathematical > relationship. 1000bhp cannot be 2670 KW. its about 1670 KW. > > Was changed back within days. > > I gave up. > Yep, that's the other side of the same flaw. But just so you know, the conversion factor between bhp and KW that I found in several places gives me an answer of 1341. If converting *2000* bhp to KW, 2670 is darn close, using that conversion factor. TJ -- 90 per cent of everything is crud. - Theodore Sturgeon
From: The Natural Philosopher on 7 Mar 2010 13:34
TJ wrote: > On 03/07/2010 12:01 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> TJ wrote: >>> >>> BEING SERIOUS IN THIS POST: >>> >>> Notbob, you can't trust Wikipedia, either. Anybody can change anything >>> there, at any time. Supposedly, it's self-policing, because those who >>> know the truth come along and make corrections. Nice idea, but it has >>> a basic flaw. >>> >>> Suppose somebody posts mis-information about a subject. It doesn't >>> have to be a lie - but it could be. It may be corrected almost >>> immediately - or it could languish for weeks before somebody finds the >>> error. Now suppose you access that information during the time the >>> error is there. Would you know the difference? Probably not. And then >>> you'd go somewhere and cite that information, not knowing that it is >>> false. >>> >>> With Wikipedia, you just don't know. It's a good place to start some >>> research, but anything, and I do mean ANYTHING you see there needs to >>> be confirmed from independent sources before you accept it as true. >>> >>> TJ >> I tried editing a wiki entry once, to correct an obvious mistake. Quoted >> an aircraft engine in bhp and KW. There is a fixed mathematical >> relationship. 1000bhp cannot be 2670 KW. its about 1670 KW. >> >> Was changed back within days. >> >> I gave up. >> > Yep, that's the other side of the same flaw. But just so you know, the > conversion factor between bhp and KW that I found in several places > gives me an answer of 1341. If converting *2000* bhp to KW, 2670 is darn > close, using that conversion factor. > > TJ I cant remember what it actually was. to be honest, so dont take that as gospel. What got me was that the presumably original poster in the face of clear evidence that a typo or error had been made, wouldn't let it be altered. A very large proportion of the internet doesn't let facts interfere with prejudice or received knowledge. Wiki is sadly no better. Ther was another case I recall. One of those 'get the answer' sites. Some one asked if hot things got heavier, on account of E=mC^2. The correct answer is microscopically 'yes'. The science answer site said no, that was only applicable to subatomic reactions. Bullshit. |