Discussions with your boss
-
Bulls are colourblind??? Next you'll be telling me the Earth doesn't orbit the sun!
-
They're not colourblind, strictly speaking. However, they cannot see colour anywhere near as well as humans.
-
-
Bulls are colourblind??? Next you'll be telling me the Earth doesn't orbit the sun!
Well...
Technically, the Earth and the sun (and all the other planets, dwarf-planets, and space debree) are orbiting around the center of mass of the solar system. Mind you, this is very close to the Sun itself, but not exactly at the Sun's center.
-
-
-
-
You clearly think I'll believe anything. What next? Columbus didn't discover America???
-
So they are... or they aren't?
-
Colour-blindness is a medical condition caused by the failure of certain types of cones; however, cattle don't have the type of cone that needs to fail
-
Colour-blindness describes the the condition of not being able to differentiate colours, in this case red/green. Whether the cause is cone failure or cone absence is irrelevant. Anyway, shall we move on? This is excessive ant-fucking, even for this site.
Edit: Removed tyop that altered meaning.
-
-
Colour-blindness describes the the condition of not being able to differentiate colours, in the case red/green.
No. Colour-blindness describes a deficiency in being able to differentiate colours - being unable to differentiate red and green/reduced ability to do so is the most common form.
Blue-yellow colour-blindness is rarer but also exists, and so do various other forms including total colour-blindness (caused by having less than two functioning types of cone cells).
Whether you should call it colour-blindness when an animal does have colour discrimination and has no deficiency in its colour discrimination compared to what's normal for its species is a question. Most mammals are dichromats, and normal individuals are red-green colour-blind compared to trichromatic animals such as humans, but we're the oddballs here (it might be more accurate to describe our colour-vision as a mutant superpower than typical mammalian vision as deficient).
In the other direction, many reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish, and invertebrates have more types of cone cells than humans and probably distinguish colour better than we can: are we colour-blind?
Anyway, shall we move on?
No?
Edit: Why is this a reply to a completely different post than it should? Actually this is my screw-up not Discourse's. Sorry @Mikael_Svahnberg.
-
Mind you, this is very close to the Sun itself,
as i recall it's actually inside the sun. not at the center yes, but i seem to recall it being not so far displaces as to be actually outside the sun.
a similar thing happens for the earth moon system. the barycentre of that system is inside the earth, but not at the centre of the earth.
-
as i recall it's actually inside the sun. not at the center yes, but i seem to recall it being not so far displaces as to be actually outside the sun.
I looked it up, as it happens. It's often outside the photosphere, but always within the corona - I'm not sure whether that really counts as 'inside'.
-
as i recall it's actually inside the sun. not at the center yes, but i seem to recall it being not so far displaces as to be actually outside the sun.
Quite often just outside the sun, though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_coordinates_(astronomy)
-
I used to have Spirograph…
-
I used to have Spirograph…
I could never make those work. The cog thing always sort of locked up after a turn or so and then jumped across the ring in a straight line so I just got scribbles.
http://i.imgur.com/XSxRw4u.gif
swiiiirrly
-
Quite often just outside the sun, though:
huh.... well then.
i sit corrected.
-
-
I don't get why the PM doesn't just copy the jira issue numbers
Same reason why teachers don't read the unique numbers I stick on every computer in the school using huge prominent stickers, and instead insist on reporting that "the computer in my room" has some urgent but ill-specified issue.
Which of the five computers in your room? The first one at the back. Sorry, is the "first one" the leftmost one, or the one nearest the doorway? The one nearest the doorway, and actually no sorry it wasn't the first one, it was the second one I think. Second from the doorway? No, the second one on the bench. Second from the left then? Yes, that one. Well all righty then - what's wrong with it? It's got no Internet.
(investigates)
When you said it's got no internet, did you actually mean that it doesn't respond in any way at all to pressing the power button on the front? Yes, that's right, I can't get the internet on it at all. Did you try switching it on at the power point? No, because nobody switches those off except me, and I never switched it off. Well, it worked for me after I switched it on at the power point, so let me know if you have any further trouble with it.
...and so it goes.
Their concerns are not my concerns.
-
it does give you a leg to stand on when it shit hits the fan
When the shit hits the fan my legs are for running away very fast, not for standing on.
-
That's preposterous
"Preposterous" is one of those words that looks good in a monocle. See also: flabbergasted.
-
So planning, testing and deployment take no time at all. I'll be sure to remember that!
Me: Nope. They all take two months.
Sales Manager: But you said that the whole works takes two months!
Me: Yep.
Sales Manager: And then you said that just the build takes two months.
Me: Yep.
Sales Manager (with patronizing "encouraging the idiots" look): So that must mean that the planning, testing and deployment are going to take... ?
Me (with "adding up numbers in my head" look): (pause) aaah... should be able to do that in... (longer pause) Two months.Moral of the story: never try to break things down for the sales droids. It only confuses them.
-
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Solar_system_barycenter.svg/463px-Solar_system_barycenter.svg.png
This also roughly simulates the path a post takes through the DiscoHBMarkMCode parser as it progresses towards being cooked.
-
flabbergasted
Susannah: I was so flabbergasted when maddy raped me, i screamed and then died.
OK... first yiff, then this. I gotta stop using google.
-
of course if i work with a sales manager like that... one of us won't be at the company long.
no threat, no warning, just stating fact.
Actual fact: The sales staff turnover was much higher than the developer staff turnover
-
Actual fact: The sales staff turnover was much higher than the developer staff turnover
-shifty look-
i can neither confirm nor deny the allegation that myself or this so called "Vinnie and his boys down by the docs" have anything to do with that situation.
_shifty look-
-
-
-
Looks like you have another difficult sales manager! Would you like some help with that?
-
nah. i got Vinnie on retainer. they don't stay problems long. :-P
-
You clearly think I'll believe anything. What next? Columbus didn't discover America???
Yes, Columbus did discover (dis-cover) America. The fact that others had discovered it before him is irrelevant, as this information was lost to the Old World. So there is nothing incorrect in saying that Columbus (re)discovered America.
-
What's incorrect is saying he proved the world was round. Columbus was an idiot
-
What's incorrect is saying he proved the world was round. Columbus was an idiot
IIRC, he thought the Earth was pear-shaped
-
Pretty much. He was convinced he could reach India going West and the journey was a lot shorter than everyone thought. Everyone else said "Don't be stupid. It's too far", and he would have died if he hadn't found a bloody great continent out there
-
http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/is-it-something-in-the-water/48454/66?u=carrievs
America: thwarting Europe's ability to dispose of its idiots at sea since 1492.
-
Non-sequitur. Columbus did not say he proved the world was round. The danger in calling someone an idiot is that you might be right about the existence of an idiot, but wrong in the identification of who the idiot is. ;)
-
Columbus did not say he proved the world was round
He didn't, but lots of people these days think he did.
The danger in calling someone an idiot is that you might be right about the existence of an idiot, but wrong in the identification of who the idiot is
Good job you didn't explicitly call me an idiot then ;)
-
To examine your response, we must first look over @Jaloopa's post. I will segment the post into two sections, henceforth labeled Statements A and B
Statement A:
@Jaloopa said:What's incorrect is saying he proved the world was round
Statement B:
@Jaloopa said:Columbus was an idiot
As we can see clearly now, @Jaloopa was making two entirely unrelated statements. Had Statement B of @Jaloopa's post been
Therefore, Columbus was an idiot
Or, had the whole post been
Columbus was an idiot because he said he proved the world was round
your point would be valid. As is, you have failed to provide any reason that @Jaloopa has made himself an idiot, and have instead created a non-sequiter yourself.
[b]DENIED[/b]
-
The context implied that these were somehow related. This is confirmed by Jaloopa's response, which provided a second chance to indicate that these were unrelated statements. With an assertion like, "Columbus was an idiot", one would expect that there would be some sort of supporting information, and thus it was reasonable to suppose that the two statements were related.
-
Unfortunately, you are again mistaken.
Let us examine @Jaloopa's second response to @RaceProUK.Pretty much. He was convinced he could reach India going West and the journey was a lot shorter than everyone thought. Everyone else said "Don't be stupid. It's too far", and he would have died if he hadn't found a bloody great continent out there
In this statement, @Jaloopa makes the following suppositions:- He [Christopher Columbus] was convinced he could reach India going West and the journey was a lot shorter than everyone thought
- Everyone else said "Don't be stupid. It's too far"
- he [Christopher Columbus] would have died if he hadn't found a bloody great continent out there
Statement 1 is by all accounts true, and is backed up by historical documents.
Statement 2 is also true for the same reasons.
Statement 3 is arguably speculation, and as such would likely not be a valid reason to call Christopher Columbus an idiot. However, 1 and 2 stand as valid support for @Jaloopa's first statement. Therefore, based on the context, I am forced to assume that this statement is being used to back up @Jaloopa's first supposition. The first statement in his post was just a statement in its own right, with no support from the prior or following statements
-
The fact that others had discovered it before him is irrelevant, as this information was lost to the Old World.
No it wasn't. It was in public documents in Scandinavia.
It was lost/never known in England, Spain, France, Portugal, etc. Not "The Old World".
The bigger problem is when Columbus "discovered" America, the largest city in the world was American. The best mathematicians in the world were American. The population of the Americas (probably) exceeded that of Europe by a comfortable margin. The people of the Americas had developed amazing crops that were far more productive than those Europeans had developed, etc.
The whole framework of thought is backwards and wrong. And so amazingly pervasive that only now, literally 500 years later, are we starting to realize exactly how amazing and advanced pre-Columbian America was. Pretty much the only thing Europe had that they didn't was a history of being able to survive and cope with rapidly-spreading plagues. Things like "knowledge of quarantine".
-
Pretty much. He was convinced he could reach India going West and the journey was a lot shorter than everyone thought. Everyone else said "Don't be stupid. It's too far", and he would have died if he hadn't found a bloody great continent out there
Probably even Columbus himself wasn't dumb enough to think he could make the journey, given current (at the time) estimates of the size of the planet. (Even if he had been at the start, he spend years talking to the experts of the day who should have been easily able to talk him out of it.) It's kind of a mystery why he thought he could. Maybe he was crazy.
The Redemption of Christopher Columbus posits that he was instructed to by a time-traveling hologram from the future.
-
Probably even Columbus wasn't dumb enough to think he could make the journey, given current (at the time) estimates of the size of the planet. It's kind of a mystery why he thought he could. Maybe he was crazy.
I remember seeing this documentary/conspiracy theory that Columbus already knew about the existence of the Americas from the Freemasons/Knights Templar who got the info from he vikings while they were hiding in Scandinavia. Or some shit.
The key piece of evidence was that Columbus signed his name with a hooked x: http://www.amazon.com/The-Hooked-Secret-History-America/dp/0878393129
Also, this:
-
I remember seeing this documentary/conspiracy theory that Columbus already knew about the existence of the Americas from the Freemasons/Knights Templar who got the info from he vikings while they were hiding in Scandinavia. Or some shit.
Well the knowledge was in Scandinavia at the time, so.
I like that we still have unsolved mysteries, frankly. Especially ones so large and impactful.
It's also possible Columbus was really just that stupid and pig-headed, but that seems unlikely based on literally everything else he did.
-
The bigger problem is when Columbus "discovered" America, the largest city in the world was American.
Wikipedia claims it was either Beijing or Nanjing, China.
-
Wikipedia claims it was either Beijing or Nanjing, China.
Numbers for 1491 are hazy, both in the Americas and in China, but it's very very likely that it was Tenochtitlan.
The fact that that chart doesn't contain a single American city makes me suspicious. But, again, detailed study of pre-Columbian societies has been completely turned on its head in just the last 10-15 years; it takes time for that shit to filter down to Wikipedia.
-
in just the last 10-15 years; it takes time for that shit to filter down to Wikipedia.
I would normally agree with you, but one of the sources for this particular article was from 2010 and one was from 2003.
-
I would normally agree with you, but one of the sources for this particular article was from 2010 and one was from 2003.
That doesn't mean he incorporated current research into it. For all we know, he composed the list in 2010 using only sources from 1975. (I'm too lazy to read the actual paper.)
Cattle - Wikipedia
