Apple's cl***ic move
-
@boomzilla said:
@Sutherlands said:
@serguey123 said:
Wow. Ease up on the guy. He's apparently relying on maps with "Thar be dragons" on them.
So... America is the douchebag that changed the standards from something workable to something better, and you are the douchebag that refuses to change to the better system. You have lost any right you had to complain about the imperial measuring system.So... it was the US that changed the fucking standard, not the rest of the world.
And yes I know that the 7 continent system has it merits and to a point is more consistent with modern geology but the definition of continent is older than that. So either redefine continent or use a new definition that takes into account tectonic plates.
No, none of those maps show either America. Just the dragons we have along the coasts.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@serguey123 said:
So... America is the douchebag that changed the standards from something workable to something better, and you are the douchebag that refuses to change to the better system. You have lost any right you had to complain about the imperial measuring system.So... it was the US that changed the fucking standard, not the rest of the world.
And yes I know that the 7 continent system has it merits and to a point is more consistent with modern geology but the definition of continent is older than that. So either redefine continent or use a new definition that takes into account tectonic plates.
I have never complained about the imperial system... we use and know them both here and we also know that in some part of the world America is considered two continents because they teach that in elementary school. I was just fucking apalled that other people did not know.
However how is the new system hugely better? If you plan to change the standard, the thing you replace it with has to be way better, because if not you are just being a dick because you are confusing everybody else.
@boomzilla said:
Wow. Ease up on the guy. He's apparently relying on maps with "Thar be dragons" on them.
I already gave you a map but if you need pretty pictures to focus...
-
@serguey123 said:
However how is the new system hugely better? If you plan to change the standard, the thing you replace it with has to be way better, because if not you are just being a dick because you are confusing everybody else.
You're right, because saying that North and South America are different continents is a huge inconvenience that nobody can get over and everyone is confused. Just like Pluto not being a planet anymore. As opposed to switching to a different measurement system.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@serguey123 said:
However how is the new system hugely better? If you plan to change the standard, the thing you replace it with has to be way better, because if not you are just being a dick because you are confusing everybody else.
You're right, because saying that North and South America are different continents is a huge inconvenience that nobody can get over and everyone is confused. Just like Pluto not being a planet anymore. As opposed to switching to a different measurement system.Look, you are the one with the problem, I know of both system so I don't have problem with them. As I said earlier I chalk this and all those dumb problems you seems to be having with switching over to the metric system to dismal education standard in your country because this is something that all six-graders in my totally fuck up country knows and handle with ease. What bother me the most is the lack of adaptability and knowlodge displayed here.
And yes... you weaseled out on explaining how the new system that consider north and south america two different continents is vastly superior to the old system. Because no matter how trivial this seems to you, my point still stand, YOU SHOULD NOT FUCKING CHANGE THE STANDARD WITHOUT A REALLY GOOD REASON... and no, tectonic plates do not qualify as a good reason.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@bertram said:
@Zemm said:
And "mong" stands for "mentally wrong".
Haha, what? Do you actually think that?
You've never heard that one? It was quite common when I was a kid in the 80s. Hell, the BBC show "Extras" did a joke based around "mongoloid" in, what, 2007-2008ish?
Edit: Oh I see the problem, you're saying it doesn't stand for "mentally wrong". Which is true. I assumed bertram was just being polite/facetious.
Your 17th BBC reference, do you watch anything else?
-
@serguey123 said:
YOU SHOULD NOT FUCKING CHANGE THE STANDARD WITHOUT A REALLY GOOD REASON...
Even if the old standard is shit.
@serguey123 said:
and no, tectonic plates do not qualify as a good reason.
Yeah! Just because the theory revolutionized geology doesn't mean that it should be used when defining geology terms!
@serguey123 said:
Filed under: Å̊̊̊̊̊̊̊̊̊nd let me tell you that when you come on the losing side of a comparison against my country you are fucked beyond redemption because for the most part we suck ass
Does North Korea even call it an "education" or do they just use the word "indoctrination"?
@Helix said:
Your 17th BBC reference, do you watch anything else?
Yes.
-
@serguey123 said:
As I said earlier I chalk this and all those dumb problems you seems to be having with switching over to the metric system to dismal education standard in your country because this is something that all six-graders in my totally fuck up country knows and handle with ease.
Yes, most elementary school kids here have no problem with the metric system. Then they leave school and go back to a useful system that doesn't suck.
@serguey123 said:
And yes... you weaseled out on explaining how the new system that consider north and south america two different continents is vastly superior to the old system. Because no matter how trivial this seems to you, my point still stand, YOU SHOULD NOT FUCKING CHANGE THE STANDARD WITHOUT A REALLY GOOD REASON... and no, tectonic plates do not qualify as a good reason.
Uh, because combining them into a single continent makes you look like an imbecile who's never looked at a map? I can see that this really bothers you. Why do you hate geography?
-
@blakeyrat said:
@serguey123 said:
YOU SHOULD NOT FUCKING CHANGE THE STANDARD WITHOUT A REALLY GOOD REASON...
Even if the old standard is shit.Explain the superiority of the new one.
@blakeyrat said:
@serguey123 said:
and no, tectonic plates do not qualify as a good reason.
Yeah! Just because the theory revolutionized geology doesn't mean that it should be used when defining geology terms!They are not appliable to the existing definition of continent, so you need to change that first.
@blakeyrat said:
@serguey123 said:
Filed under: And let me tell you that when you come on the losing side of a comparison against my country you are fucked beyond redemption because for the most part we suck ass
Does North Korea even call it an "education" or do they just use the word "indoctrination"?What is the difference?
-
@boomzilla said:
@serguey123 said:
As I said earlier I chalk this and all those dumb problems you seems to be having with switching over to the metric system to dismal education standard in your country because this is something that all six-graders in my totally fuck up country knows and handle with ease.
Yes, most elementary school kids here have no problem with the metric system. Then they leave school and go back to a useful system that doesn't suck.And why don't they do better and remember them both? Is that too much to ask?
@boomzilla said:
@serguey123 said:
And yes... you weaseled out on explaining how the new system that consider north and south america two different continents is vastly superior to the old system. Because no matter how trivial this seems to you, my point still stand, YOU SHOULD NOT FUCKING CHANGE THE STANDARD WITHOUT A REALLY GOOD REASON... and no, tectonic plates do not qualify as a good reason.
Uh, because combining them into a single continent makes you look like an imbecile who's never looked at a map? I can see that this really bothers you. Why do you hate geography?Again, depends on the map, I think the only alternative is to actually know them both because if you have never heard that they used to be considered a single continent then you look like an illiterate lout. I don't hate or love geography as I don't hate or love anything. What bothers me is ignorance for the most part. I'm ok with any system, after all 200 years from now the otter overlords will have no idea of what we are talking about.
-
@serguey123 said:
And why don't they do better and remember them both? Is that too much to ask?
Why do you think they don't remember the metric system?
@serguey123 said:
Again, depends on the map, I think the only alternative is to actually know them both because if you have never heard that they used to be considered a single continent then you look like an illiterate lout.
Apparently only to residents of Corruptsylvania. I'm OK with that. It's a not very interesting and useless fact.
-
@serguey123 said:
I do, but this isn't one of them. @serguey123 said:Look, you are the one with the problem,
I know of both system so I don't have problem with them.
I know of both systems too, which is why I have a problem with the dumb one. In fact, I know of a system for 7 continents, 2 for 6, 1 for 5 and 1 for 4. I WIN!@serguey123 said:
As I said earlier I chalk this and all those dumb problems you seems to be having with switching over to the metric system to dismal education standard in your country because this is something that all six-graders in my totally fuck up country knows and handle with ease. What bother me the most is the lack of adaptability and knowlodge displayed here.
You think that all the businesses here that have used imperial measurements for centuries don't switch over to the metric system because of education standards? I think blakey got it right, indoctrination is the right word for your "education".@serguey123 said:
And yes... you weaseled out on explaining how the new system that consider north and south america two different continents is vastly superior to the old system.
The "old system" where N and S America are 1 conteninent, but Europe and Asia are 2? You can't see how stupid that is? @serguey123 said:Because no matter how trivial this seems to you, my point still stand, YOU SHOULD NOT FUCKING CHANGE THE STANDARD WITHOUT A REALLY GOOD REASON... and no, tectonic plates do not qualify as a good reason.
You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means. There are 5 different "standards". They are taught in different areas of the world. The 7 continent model is taught in most English speaking countries, and in China. Please tell me which of these 5 models was "the standard" and how the US changed it.
-
@boomzilla said:
@serguey123 said:
And why don't they do better and remember them both? Is that too much to ask?
Why do you think they don't remember the metric system?What is the problem then? I'm not the smartest person in the world and I don't have a problem with two system being used concurrently on a daily basis so...
-
@Sutherlands said:
I know of both systems too, which is why I have a problem with the dumb one. In fact, I know of a system for 7 continents, 2 for 6, 1 for 5 and 1 for 4. I WIN!
Explain with words why that is the dumb one
@Sutherlands said:
You think that all the businesses here that have used imperial measurements for centuries don't switch over to the metric system because of education standards? I think blakey got it right, indoctrination is the right word for your "education".
I don't care about what anybody use, I care for the fact that anybody should be able to use them both or they are retards.
@Sutherlands said:
There are 5 different "standards". They are taught in different areas of the world. The 7 continent model is taught in most English speaking countries, and in China. Please tell me which of these 5 models was "the standard" and how the US changed it.
Did you read the wiki article I quoted? I don't care about the rest of the world, I care for the fact that after WWII the US changed their own standard and maps and that seem retarded to me because you should not change something that works even if it is retarded unless what you are replacing it for is vastly superior and nobody in this thread so far has made an intelligent case for the new system being better and no "it looks better on the atlas" is not good enough.
-
@serguey123 said:
Because North and South America are more "discrete landmasses" than Europe and Asia. Much more.Explain with words why that is the dumb one
@serguey123 said:
Did YOU read the wiki article you quoted? From the late 18th century (when America actually gained its independence) "some geographers started to regard North America and South America as two parts of the world, making five parts in total." So, from about the beginning of America, shortly after the DISCOVERY of the continent, geographers started seeing them as 2 continents. This view was MORE COMMON by the mid 19th century. So, your position is "up until we discovered the continents, North and South America were not considered separate." That's an... interesting position. Let me quote you some more from that wikipedia article.Did you read the wiki article I quoted? I don't care about the rest of the world, I care for the fact that after WWII the US changed their own standard and maps and that seem retarded to me because you should not change something that works even if it is retarded unless what you are replacing it for is vastly superior and nobody in this thread so far has made an intelligent case for the new system being better and no "it looks better on the atlas" is not good enough.
"From the 1950s, most United States geographers divided America in two<FONT size=2>[50]</FONT>—consistent with modern understanding of geology and plate tectonics. With the addition of Antarctica, this made the seven-continent model. However, this division of America never appealed to Latin America, which saw itself spanning an America that was a single landmass, and there the conception of six continents remains, as it does in scattered other countries."
Once again, you keep saying this word ("standard"). I do not think it means what you think it means. Pretty sure it was never a standard.
-
@Sutherlands said:
Did YOU read the wiki article you quoted? From the late 18th century (when America actually gained its independence) "some geographers started to regard North America and South America as two parts of the world, making five parts in total." So, from about the beginning of America, shortly after [b]nearly 300 years had passed since[/b] the DISCOVERY of the continent, geographers started seeing them as 2 continents. This view was MORE COMMON by the mid 19th century. So, your position is "up until [b]a few hundred years after[/b] we discovered the continents, North and South America were not considered separate."
FTFY.
-
@FrostCat said:
@DaveK said:
Guess they were afraid they might catch a cold on that one.that's the bit I totally remember: Patrick Moore suddenly using an entirely new pronunciation than that which everybody had been using the day before.
Kind of like how at some point, that little country in the Persian Gulf, Kahtar, became Cutter?
-
@Sutherlands said:
@serguey123 said:
blah blah intercontinental continental standard
Once again, you keep saying this word ("standard"). I do not think it means what you think it means. Pretty sure it was never a standard.
When it comes to maps, the "standard" is, and always has been, whatever some random cartographer decided to put on a map, which was then adopted into widespread use. But if you really want some sort of sensible standard, the obviously superior solution is the Dymaxion map, which makes it clear that there is only a single continent.
-
@Scarlet Manuka said:
@Sutherlands said:
Ah yes, the old "geologists updated their maps and definitions as soon as someone without instant communication landed somewhere" position.Did YOU read the wiki article you quoted? From the late 18th century (when America actually gained its independence) "some geographers started to regard North America and South America as two parts of the world, making five parts in total." So, from about the beginning of America, shortly after nearly 300 years had passed since the DISCOVERY of the continent, geographers started seeing them as 2 continents. This view was MORE COMMON by the mid 19th century. So, your position is "up until a few hundred years after we discovered the continents, North and South America were not considered separate."
FTFY.Australia was discovered in 1606 but it took almost 200 years for them to recognize that it was it's own continent. If it takes 200 years for an island, I think they get at least that long to update the Americas to separate continents. Also, landing on the east coast of a land mass does not tell you how far west it goes.
-
@Kittemon said:
@Sutherlands said:
I think you're right. So then the Americans broke the 1-continent standard into 2 continents of North America and everything else. Now what serguey was saying makes so much sense!
When it comes to maps, the "standard" is, and always has been, whatever some random cartographer decided to put on a map, which was then adopted into widespread use. But if you really want some sort of sensible standard, the obviously superior solution is the Dymaxion map, which makes it clear that there is only a single continent.@serguey123 said:
blah blah intercontinental continental standard
Once again, you keep saying this word ("standard"). I do not think it means what you think it means. Pretty sure it was never a standard.
-
@Sutherlands said:
Also, landing on the east coast of a land mass does not tell you how far west it goes.
All the way to India, of course!
-
@boomzilla said:
@Sutherlands said:
Also, landing on the east coast of a land mass does not tell you how far west it goes.
All the way to India, of course!
Obligatory Mitchell and Webb skit on crazy land naming.
"We sailed west to find them, so they're the WEST indies."
-
@Kittemon said:
@Sutherlands said:
@serguey123 said:
blah blah intercontinental continental standard
Once again, you keep saying this word ("standard"). I do not think it means what you think it means. Pretty sure it was never a standard.
When it comes to maps, the "standard" is, and always has been, whatever some random cartographer decided to put on a map, which was then adopted into widespread use. But if you really want some sort of sensible standard, the obviously superior solution is the Dymaxion map, which makes it clear that there is only a single continent.
Bang your heads together.
There is only one land mass. And there's salty water over the low bits.
-
What about the tectonic plates, then?
-
@dhromed said:
Good question.What about the tectonic plates, then?
-
-
@ender said:
@dhromed said:
What about the tectonic plates, then?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uBcq1x7P34+1 like
First comment:
where can i get the awesome minecraft skin?
also +1 like
-
I <3 Mercator projection
-
@Sutherlands said:
I <3 Mercator projection
Okay, I don't understand it if you're serious, because then you'd be wrong, but if you're being sarcastic/cynical*, then I don't know what your joke refers to and I'm not laughing.
-
@dhromed said:
1) You can't be wrong about what you like. 2) Did you watch the youtube clip provided?@Sutherlands said:
I <3 Mercator projection
Okay, I don't understand it if you're serious, because then you'd be wrong, but if you're being sarcastic/cynical*, then I don't know what your joke refers to and I'm not laughing.
-
-
@boomzilla said:
@Sutherlands said:
Jim?1) You can't be wrong about what you like.
What's your favorite colour?
-
@PJH said:
@boomzilla said:
Error: input must be 5 characters or longer.What's your favorite colour?
Jim?
-
@derula said:
@Power Troll said:
@derula said:
The real WTF is censoring words to protect children from knowledge that isn't particularly harmful in itself and they'll learn anyway sooner or later. All just because US Americans suck in parenting.
Yeah, good point. Non-US Americans aren't nearly as bad as parenting as those asshole US Americans.
Sorry if I can't keep up. What's your point? I made a (probably unqualified and undoubtedly needlessly, provokingly generalized) comment on what I've heard about the situation in the United States. Specifically, I have been told (by someone who lives in the country himself), that in his experience many parents let their children play violent video games that clearly aren't suited for them, to spare costs for a real babysitter. And apparently, this was not just one opinion, but a problem openly discussed in the media. It's not that the packaging doesn't give a parental advisory, parents are just ignoring it. Why? Because they're good at parenting?
And I mentioned specifically the USA because I know for sure this problem affects that country, but have not enough information to know for sure whether it affects other US countries as well. I also do not know if the word censoring is as common in other American countries as it is in the USA.
So what's your problem? Did you find my formulation "US Americans" confusing? Does it look like I think all Americans are from the United States? Well in that case fuck you, you pedantic dickweed. I hate you and your extended family.
Edit: Oh, I just noticed the nickname. Phew. I had thought about leaving the last sentence out for fear of sounding insulting, but that way it's all right.Wow. Proof positive that German people take stuff way too seriously.
But yeah, there's no doubt that the "US American" education system is royally FUBAR. We just need to get rid of the DoEd and abolish collective bargaining, though, and we'll be straight.
-
@PJH said:
@boomzilla said:
@Sutherlands said:
Jim?1) You can't be wrong about what you like.
What's your favorite colour[b]ed character in "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer"[/b]?FTFY
-
@boomzilla said:
@Sutherlands said:
Blue. No! YELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO1) You can't be wrong about what you like.
What's your favorite colour?
-
@Sutherlands said:
@boomzilla said:
@Sutherlands said:
1) You can't be wrong about what you like.
What's your favorite colour?
Blue. No! YELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Yes, that was all. Just being a contradicting dickweed.
-
Did anyone notice that the REAL problem with treating North America and South America two different continents is that they still have the same name? I mean, at least it's a yard in the Imperial System and a meter in the Useful System, but you would just name the two continents "America" and "America". The annoyance about this is that when people talk about "America" even today, they are more often than not actually referring to the "United States of America", which is neither "North America" nor "South America". Of course, you can build a system with this - after all, the European Union has a "Council of the European Union" and a "Europeon Council", which are not to be confused with the "Council of Europe" - but you probably don't want to. (Side note: Less than 1% of the Europeans know the name of the "High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy", even though the gal is in theory one of our most important politicians.)
-
@indigo said:
Did anyone notice that the REAL problem with treating North America and South America two different continents is that they still have the same name? I mean, at least it's a yard in the Imperial System and a meter in the Useful System, but you would just name the two continents "America" and "America". The annoyance about this is that when people talk about "America" even today, they are more often than not actually referring to the "United States of America", which is neither "North America" nor "South America". Of course, you can build a system with this - after all, the European Union has a "Council of the European Union" and a "Europeon Council", which are not to be confused with the "Council of Europe" - but you probably don't want to. (Side note: Less than 1% of the Europeans know the name of the "High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy", even though the gal is in theory one of our most important politicians.)
A couple of thoughts when I read this:
- The names of the continents (I'm an American*, so I'll go with what I was taught) are not "America". They are "North America" and "South America"; those are distinct names, despite them both sharing the same word.
- When people talk about "America" (* or American), usually they are referring to a country, and not a continent. So, it is generally a safe bet that they are referring to the US. This holds true for Europeans - at least, where I'm from and the people that I generally talk to - where it is typically referring to people of British origin (i.e., not Scottish, Irish, Polish, etc).
I guess it just comes down to the audience and context, which admittedly on the Internet is a very broad in nature.
