While we’re talking about the Pythagorean theorem, nothing irks me more than hearing someone refer to the theory that came from Pythagoras as “Pythagorean’s theorem.”
:smack:
Why? It is a theorem, and arguably the theory didn’t come from him.
My guess is that judikium would be ok with the Pythagorean theorem or Pythagoras’ Theorem, but Pythagorean’s theorem is just nonsensical as the theorem is not the property of the adjectival form of Pythagoras.
Oh. Heh. Go go reading comprehension!
Good guess, but no.
It’s a little known fact that Stalin was actually born in Palermo.
I’ve never actually heard that mistake, for which I am grateful, as it would most likely send me into a venom-spitting rage. As I lack the glands to create venom, I would then have to find a cobra or something, extract the glands, and implant them into myself in order to fulfill the requirements of the tantrum, and as I am very clumsy I might well end up being bitten by the cobra, and no one would help me on account of me being an asshole. I would, thus, die as a result of hearing “Pythagorean’s theorem.”
It’s a strange one this. It used to be the case that everyone thought it was a fact but now it’s almost gone too far the other way - as if some people believe that no one ever thought the earth was flat.
Certainly in the west, after about the 3rd century BC, no one has thought the earth was flat. But in other parts of the world people did think the earth was flat, even until quite recently. In India the earth was thought to be flat until about 500 AD and in China it was thought the earth was flat until the 17th Century and the arrival of western astronomy.
So in a way, it’s strictly almost true to say people thought the earth was flat until Colombus, even up to a hundred years after Colombus. It’s got nothing to do with Colombus but there were peoples in the world who were of that view at that time.
Let’s put it this way, in Columbus’ time, nobody who knew what the hell he was talking about thought the Earth was flat. The dispute was over its size, and Columbus was completely wrong about that.
At this point I’m mostly subbing to threads for later responses.
But I must comment again on one of my greatest pet peeves. (It’s so great a pet-peeve of mine that I immediately thought of it when I read the OP, before seeing your post. But that’s not why I am posting here.)
I have two great anecdotes about how STUPID people are about this, that they not only repeat it in a mindless way, but actually add to the stupidity.
One I have already posted to a thread here many moons ago at SDMB, but I may repeat it later in this thread.
The more recent one is this:
A very intelligent (or seeming to be same) youngish woman at a natural foods co-op. recently mentioned it, and at some point, perhaps after I tried to disabuse her of it, remarked that if we did use 100% of our brains, we’d probably be so powerful that…
WE WOULDN’T NEED OUR BODIES ANYMORE!
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
- “Jack”
Probably not even then. It took a lucky long photographic exposure from the 100 inch Mt. Wilson telescope on a night of exceptional seeing to resolve individual stars in Andromeda. (which is the galaxy nearist our own Milky Way) I dont think there are any purely optical telescopes that would allow you to see extra-galactic stars by eye.
Mildly sarcastical 
mode on:
Minor (?) nitpick here? It depends on what was meant by the remark. An A-A Vulcan is a contradiction in (fictional) terms, to be sure, as long as we are not talking about another half-human like Spock. (And, of course, we are not.)
However, if you check either of the two bio links at the bottom of the Tim Russ Wikipedia page, you will find that his city of birth certainly suggests that he qualifies as A-A!
And that is probably what the folks who wrote the reviews actually meant. I mean, y’think?
/Mildly sarcastical mode off!
- “Jack”
ETA: Oops! Even though I looked for it, I missed that someone already pointed this out.
This bothers me a little…this is the second time on the Dope that I’ve been told that the Immaculate Conception of Mary has nothing to do with the virgin birth of Jesus.
So it’s all just a big coincidence, huh? The two things are totally unrelated is that it?
I mean, sheesh, she is supposed to have been born without sin, even though sexual intercourse was involved, and then managed to conceive the son of god (if you believe) without losing her virginity.
And these things have nothing to do with each other?
Of course they’re related. The mistake is that people think the “immaculate conception” was the conception of Jesus when it was actually the conception of Mary. So in that narrow context, the “immaculate conception” has nothing (directly) to do with the birth of Jesus.
Correct. They are independent dogma. The Catholic church accepts both of them. Protestants only accept the Virgin Birth. The Immaculate Conception is fairly recent, as doctrine goes, having been officially promulgated in 1854. Protestants tend to see it as part of a trend towards giving Mary a much bigger part in salvation. (Cf., JP II declaring Mary co-redemptrix of the world.)
So, despite the sarcastic tone of your question, you are correct. These things have nothing to do with each other.
Evolution itself is a fact. There are theories on how it occurs, but there is no doubt that it occurs.
Well, they have to do with each other in the sense that Mary had to be immaculately conceived in order to be a suitable vessel to bear Jesus (as 1920s Style “Death Ray” said).
But they are, indeed, two different dogmas that are frequently confused by the name “immaculate conception” being used incorrectly for the Incarnation of Jesus.
I just read (Bad Astronomer) Phil Plait’s new book “Death From the Skies!”. In the chapter on gamma ray bursts (pg 119), he mentions a 2008 gamma ray burst that was nearly 8 billion light years away and visible to the naked eye. Note that GRBs are stars (or ex-stars) going hypernova or neutron star/blackhole collisions.
And when penicillin became available in 1947 they did not cure the patients and close the study down. That was the crime. That and the lack of informed consent to begin with. You are dangerously close to be an apologist for a shameful episode here.
From what I understand, it’s not 4/1 but 5. Five fingers five toes five protuberances (2 legs 2arms/wings etc. 1 head). It has to do with the way the cells split up. Like limbs on a tree only in fives.
I’m referring specically to the “4 fingers, 1 opposable digit” seen in nearly all the Star Trek species, though.