New captcha = no captcha, yes ranking
-
No, zebras are not horses. They're closely related — closely enough to hybridize — but not the same thing.
Horse: Equus ferus
Domesticated horse: Equus ferus caballus
Zebras: Equus zebra, Equus quagga, Equus grevyiIf you try to claim zebras are horses, then so are donkeys (Equus africanus asinus), onagers (Equus hemionus) and kiangs (Equus kiang). But they're not. Zebras are not even in the same subgenus of Equus as E. ferus.
Edit: Hanzo'd
-
-
You expect me inspect raw on every post to make sure I don't miss any jokes? That seems like a waste of time and a barrier to pedantry.
I counter propose that If you need a
hiddentag to make your joke evident, then your joke is weak. Weak I say!
-
I counter propose that If you need a hidden tag to make your joke evident, then your joke is weak. Weak I say!
having strong/evident jokes is a barrier to handing out pendantry flags.
-
Equus
On the other hand, Equidae is the horse family (Wikipedia confirms it), so in that sense zebras (and donkeys, etc) are horses.
-
Equidae is the horse family (Wikipedia confirms it)
And you believe everything Wikipedia says?
-
On the other hand, Equidae is the horse family (Wikipedia confirms it), so in that sense zebras (and donkeys, etc) are horses.
They are in the horse family, but they are not horses. Apples, plums, cherries, peaches and almonds are in the rose family (Rosaceae), but they are not roses.
-
This is what you generally think of when you picture a Norwegian Fjord.
Actually, this is what I generally think of when I picture a Norwegian fjord. Only yesterday I learned that Norwegian Fjord is also a breed of horse.
-
And you believe everything Wikipedia says?
I know we're all just engaging in some recreational pedantry, but when someone resorts to the "but Wikipedia could be wrong!" argument you know they're a lost cause.
-
I know we're all just engaging in some recreational pedantry, but when someone resorts to the "but Wikipedia could be wrong!" argument you know they're a lost cause.
You're saying you've never thrown out an argument like that just for fun?
-
but when someone resorts to the "but Wikipedia could be wrong!" argument you know they're a lost cause.
CITATION NEEDED
-
Also, to post on-topic just in case someone is interested, some guy started reverse-engineering the javascript code:
https://github.com/ReCaptchaReverser/InsideReCaptcha
Apparently it contains a full VM for a custom bytecode language, complete with encryption, self-modifying code, the whole stuff.
-
when someone resorts to the "but Wikipedia could be wrong!" argument you know they're a lost cause.
Wikipedia claims the Bolsheviks were the majority faction, when it's fairly well-known they chose the name to make people think they were, when they were actually a minority.
-
Wikipedia claims the Bolsheviks were the majority faction, when it's fairly well-known they chose the name to make people think they were, when they were actually a minority.
Yes, but the opposing side was called the Mensheviks (the “minority” party) and accepted the name. The names were probably related to being the majority or minority of their particular section of Russian political Marxism, without regard to what the rest of the country thought.
None of which would have mattered if the Bolsheviks hadn't come out on top of the second Russian revolution of 1917 and managed to survive in charge through the civil war that came pretty much straight after.
-
Yes, but the opposing side was called the Mensheviks (the “minority” party) and accepted the name.
The Mensheviks, at the time the names were chosen--by the Bolsheviks as well, by the way--were, in fact, the majority, but apparently they did not realize what the Bolsheviks had planned, much like the modern-day West.
I mean, I first heard about this decades ago, it's not as if it was any kind of secret or anything. Wikipedia is straight-out lying about it. It's been brought up on the talk page, but just like with pages about global warming/climate change, the Leftist-leaning editors will not permit any dissent.
-
Also, to post on-topic just in case someone is interested, some guy started reverse-engineering th--
-
Has anyone used this newer version of reCAPTCHA on a live site? I'm considering using it for a personal project, but I don't want to do that if it's ineffective.
-
also the horse was deaf. and half blind.
So you shout and wave your arms and put a halter on the one that doesn't run.
-
So, the problem with this new ‘unobtrusive’ captcha system is that apparently, some jerkwads might take it as an opportunity to add captcha to everything, even non-spammy actions like using the search box. I mean, I came to the site thru google, read the top answer, then tried to search for something more relevant; of course nocaptcha wouldn't have gathered enough information to tell me apart from a bot, because I hadn't done anything yet.
Are you a human being? We apologize for the confusion, but we can't quite tell if you're a person or a script. Please don't take this personally. Bots and scripts can be remarkably lifelike these days! Check the CAPTCHA box, and we'll be out of your way.
Addendum: Subtle toast
-
when someone resorts to the "but Wikipedia could be wrong!" argument you know they're a lost cause.