jakee

For those who wanted to wait for an official report, here's a UK inquiry, taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2009301,00.html Do you want to have an ideagasm?

In a scant 7 words, (have at it, numerologists) Steve crystalizes what I cannot stand about Chuteless' type of people. Seven, the number of the manx cat..... Do you want to have an ideagasm?

The part about him cutting of someone's hand and beating them with it. No one said it was an American person's hand. Does everyone in the world who has committed a crime display anti-American sentiment? (Not to mention it sounds pretty far fetched!) Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I think she is probably an idiot. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

The prof didn't make a mistake, the prof took your equation at face value. Except you haven't yet been able to show a case where kallend has been technically incorrect. And since you're not one of his students, I'm not sure what grounds you have to belittle his teaching methods? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Double Bullshit. As I've stated too many times already, that equation is obvious to any engineering or physics student. If you, or Kallend, can't recognize it as such maybe you should check the wants ads. I heard McD's is hiring. This is DZ.com, not MIT. Sure it's recognisable and sure we knew what you meant. However, as you wrote it, it did mean that 32.2 slugs equals 1 pound mass, which is also a valid equation. Why the hell would you ever want to rely on someone correctly interpreting what you wrote when you could put it beyond any doubt with a mere 6 additional keystrokes? Just think, for those 6 easy keystrokes you could have saved yourself an additional page of explanation. So if you think about it, being precise really would have been a more economical way of expressing yourself Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Absolutely. I would be using them summer only, and I almost always open my visor for the canopy ride anyways. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Bullshit. If you write an equation for someone else and they fail to interpret it correctly because you didn't bother to put units on it then it is your fault. Your professor told you guys Wikipedia was misleading, and you started a thread here saying that your professor pointed out that Wikipedia was wrong and that pounds weren't mass at all. Again, who's fault is it that Kallend gained the impression from your post that your professor didn't know pounds were mass? Another example of the importance of clear and precise communication! Do you want to have an ideagasm?

While Eddie Izzard is still top of the heap for me, its actually this Aussie dude that's had me laughing the hardest recently. Jim Jeffries, it's incredibly crude, but stick with it, he's hilarious! Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So you've never seen photos of a British court??? No one could dress up in those powdered wigs without a sense of humor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6KyA_KabNM Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Kallend assumed it was as it was written, a dimensionless number. Since the equation was written perfectly to give the result of 1 pound mass why assume it would be anything else? First we'd have to assume you were trying to get a force, then we'd have to assume you were using a consistent system of units (and missions to Mars have crashed for that reason alone). Why let ambiguity creep into an equation when you could have put exactly what you meant simply by typing ft/s^2? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Hey dude, I got no problem with jumping in sunglasses, I'm looking for a pair myself that will fit under my fullface, and I reckon the Minutes might be the ones. Surely you can understand though, that when someone uses "When its time, its time" as their sole response to a safety query other people are going to raise red flags. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You didn't specify any units for 32.2, in which case it is dimensionless. Mass times a dimensionless number is still mass Edit: And if you think thats nit-picking, try leaving out ft/s^2 on a high school exam paper and see how many marks you get. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Then why on earth did you bring it up as an answer to someone pointing out possible safety concerns? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Umm, all of them? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

How can Britain be "tops" when Ireland is worse? Is Ireland no longer in Europe? To be fair to John, that was the actual title of the newspaper article he linked. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

As I said, my lecturers have never needed to tell me not to use Wikipedia as a reference - because I'm not that stupid! Any moron who actually cites Wikipedia in an essay deserves whatever failing mark it is that they'll get. However, the fact remains that they were correct in the units of mass that they listed. And since the title of your thread is "Why Wikipedia is not an accepted reference" you can excuse me for thinking that we were discussing people with the knowledge and wherewithall to figure out for themselves that some of those units may have double meanings. If the title of your thread had been "Why Wikipedia might mislead some dumbass off the street" then I'd agree with you. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

That is their fault, not Wikipedia's. On a page about mass units. it listed units of mass. It is under no obligation to spell out which units can also be used as weight or force. If people weren't sure then they should have looked up units of weight as well. No one's ever spelled that out in my classes. I think it's pretty much assumed that anyone who's made it into university should be able to figure that one out all by themselves! Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So... Wikipedia should only contain information that everybody knows already? Well shit Copernicus, sure you could nitpick and say the earth spins round the sun - but in the real world everyone knows it's what goes up and down every day. Why should Wikipedia be forced to cater to the lowest common denominator? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Well, they attacked the one that they wanted to attack - they (or rather Popov36) thought it was an "orange missile" convoy. There does, however, seem to me to be confusion over the location they gave their control to check if there were friendlies in the area. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Hehe, that's funny.

After re-reading the article I do actually agree with you there - the man is smug, condescending and rude. I'm not at all surprised that people accuse him of not supporting the troops. I still do not see the validity of your counter argument though. Supporting the troops is independant of one's opinion on the mission. It's just wrong to suggest that someone who opposes a war should turn around and pretend to support it as soon as it begins. You say the debate was conducted wordwide before the invasion - yes it was, and opponents were simply trampled over. You can't (not you, the powers that be) ignore all opposing opinions then turn round and say "You damn well better be with us now" as soon as the first shot is fires. A bad plan remains a bad plan once it gets put into action. Absolutely not. A plan can be unsupported for many reasons, not least ethical ones. Another might be if the plan itself is simply not sufficiently well thought out to allow its 'instruments' a reasonable chance of success. It is NOT a vote of no confidence in the troops to say that the invasion of Iraq was unjustifiable and it is NOT a vote of no confidence in the troops to say the planning for the occupation was hopelessly optimistic. The case for withdrawing the troops now is along the lines of "Sorry guys, we fucked you over and put you into a really bad situation now we're going to bring you home" The case for staying and 'supporting the troops' is along the lines of "Sorry guys, we fucked you over and put you into a really bad situation now we're going to keep you there doing the same old same old until someone else comes along to take responsibility for this thing" Do you want to have an ideagasm?

No. Its quite clear that when they asked if there were any friendlies in the area they specified the area 800m north of the artillery marker. These were the revetted vehicles that they called down the arty strike on. MANILA was never asked to confirm friendlies in the area of the British column. Bottom line, pilot saw the orange panels as soon as he saw the vehicles and then convinced himself they were 'orange rockets'. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

The FAC did not call in the strike. The A-10 pilots visually located and "identified" the British column themselves. The one A-10 then attacked it without clearance from the FAC. The incident occured during the initial invasion of Iraq. We weren't fighting terrorists, we were fighting the Iraqi army. Gotta love people not bothering to find out anything about the incident before jumping in with opinions. The tape that was leaked is at least 15 mins long, from before the initial sighting of the Brit column, through the attack and well into their flight home. It includes all the radio comms. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Unfortunately he does refer to the army as a "mercenary... oops, volunteer force" which I think undermines his point somewhat. Apart from that though, why specifically do you disagree? I just don't see why civilians who want to be seen to "support the troops" need to give up their political opinions. Do you want to have an ideagasm?