geekelations

By Margaret -
I just noticed that this week's tropical storms in Australia are not in alphabetical order, so I went to the source to get my head straightened. It seems that each storm developed in a different area and comes under different naming rules. Larry formed in the "Eastern Australian Region"; Wati began its churning over in the "Fiji Region", and Glenda, which is about to pounce, is spinning around in the "Western Australian Region".

I suppose this is only of true interest to geeks, but I had to share.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy9:14 PM

    Is this related to the fact that people on any given day die in alphabetical order?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9:49 PM

    they are good runescape money
    cheap rs gold

    NosTale gold
    NosTale money

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more