« first day (1329 days earlier)      last day (3889 days later) » 

00:00
It got two upvotes, too.
@medica Your first sentence has a surfeit of words.
Canada has a health-care system. Period.
We do not.
I mean, there are few of us (I agree) who like third news' answers.
I prefer the British whore's definition of 'gentleman' when she was testifying at trial. QC: And what was your impression of the 'customer's demeanor? BW:'e behaved very well. I could tell 'e was a gentleman'. QC: And how did you know that he was a gentleman? BW: Well, when 'e was gettin' dressed to leave 'e put 'is socks on before 'is trousers. — user3847 Jun 12 at 21:58
I predict that this user shan’t last long with us.
It's just ugly.
I hope that's true.
I hate the way people (so many red-blooded Americans, anyway) think we have the best system of medical care in the world.
Can't they at least see Canada's?
They are our neighbor!
@medica best == dearest, apparently
00:03
@medica Umm would think that?
I have never heard any Americans claim that.
I have, however, heard a Canadian guy claim that the American system was best.
They needn't look too far across the pond, either, to see how much it sucks.
@medica What pond?
Lake Michigan.
The Atlantic
Lake Erie.
Most docs will admit readily that the system is broken... even those who rake it in.
Yes, that is my impression.
Like the other doc in this room.
00:07
There's another doc in this room?
Yes, but I haven't seen him in a while.
oh, you mean David M.?
He's been gone a long time.
Yes! David.
I wonder if he's coming back. He worked enthusiastically to get past 10K, then quietly disappeared.
Didn't even stick out the 100 day badge.
I think there was a period when he had a lot of time off.
00:09
could be.
(Maybe his wife was pregnant?) Does he have kids, do you know?
@Cerberus Lake Michigan separates Wisconsin from Michigan. Lake Superior separates Wisconsin from Canada.
@medica Yes, he has kids.
@tchrist Oh, well, some exotic lake...
hmm. then I don't have a clue why he has not returned. Maybe it is too addictive, or was.
@Cerberus You’re calling the largest freshwater lake in the world just some exotic lake? Time to dredge up that insular moniker again.
I thought that was Lake Victoria by area, or Lake Baikal by volume?
00:14
omg, the great dunes national park... so beautiful
Lake Superior is the largest freshwater lake in the world in area (if Lakes Michigan and Huron are taken separately; see Lake Michigan–Huron), and the third largest in volume, behind Lake Baikal in Siberia and Lake Tanganyika in East Africa. - wiki
Exactly.
I just saw Lake Michigan for the first time last year. I was very surprised. Wouldn't mind living on it, it was so beautiful.
@tchrist Have you flagged any of his comments?
@medica Maybeeeeeee.
@medica Hey, I have to have some kind of excuse for getting geography wrong!
:-)
00:21
He’ll always talk down to you because you’re a woman, you know.
but it cancels with me because I will always talk up to her :-)
hahaha! :-D
a*(1/a) = 1
@tchrist I do know.
@skullpatrol ooooooh!
Never kick a man when he’s down on his knees; best wait for him to stand up first.
2
00:24
Then it's only a kick to the shins...
Hello Everyone
@Kabir101 Hi
How are you guys doing?
00:35
fine thanks, how are you?
it's quiet...
I am well Thanks.
I have been drifting over the internet and have come across a sentence where I got confused.
Can you try to put your thoughts over the statement?
askaway
"The health of the eye seems to demand a horizon. We never tired, so long as we can see far enough."
It's a quote.
This statement is grammatical, I understand. However, when I tried to change the singular noun 'eye' to 'Eyes' plural, I got confused.
@Kabir101 This doesn't sound like a native English quote. Is it?
00:41
Let me find that. I am not sure yet.
The health of the eyes seem to demand a horizon.
No, he was a native English speaker. he was born in Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
We never tired is past tense, so long as we can see far enough is present and future.
@medica Not future, just non-past.
The actual quote has an are.
We are never tired
00:43
Ahah.
That makes the tenses match. Better.
@tchrist true.
@Alraxite: you are right. I just noticed. We are never tried. Thanks
@tchrist Ain't no tenses about it. Tired is an adjective in that sentence.
"Do you think, "we are never tried" is the right sentence?
A participle-adjective.
00:46
yes
@Robusto I meant that are makes it work.
I dont think we need "are" there.
I do...
me too...
@Kabir101 Then you’d have to change can to could.
00:47
otherwise we never tired sounds like a verb phrase
Not just sounds like.
Is.
(picky picky)
is.
not just is
I.S.
hahaha
00:49
How . . . Clintonian.
@tchrist: If I use it without an "are". "The health of the eye seems to demand a horizon. We never tired, so long as we could see far enough." Is that what you mean?
Yes, but understand that you’ve just now placed the entire second sentence in some sort of historical past.
We never tired means the same thing as We never did tire insofar as it is a past tense inflection.
Now, one more question on the same statement.
When I try to change the singular noun 'eye' to 'Eyes' plural, I get confused. My question is to "seems'.
00:53
10 mins ago, by skullpatrol
The health of the eyes seem to demand a horizon.
What is the subject that governs the verb?
The subject is health, not eyes.
Seems is used with "health" or with "eye"
Immaterial.
Yeah, @tchrist you got my question.
Thanks
The subject of the sentence is health.
The verb of the sentence is seems.
Nothing else matters.
00:54
Correct
and health is a singular noun.
Why would changing eye to eyes change anything? It is not the subject.
However, the original formulation reads better.
Got it
if you got it, explain the meaning of the passage
@skullpatrol: Do you really want me to explain, what I have understood out of the statement?
sure
that's how you learn :-)
01:03
The health (subject-singular noun) of the eyes seems(singular verb) to demand a horizon. We are never tired (if you take away the "are" it will become a verb phrase). So long as we can see far enough.
The confusion was in identifying the noun (subject). When I read it first, I thought "eye" is the subject.
(Scientifically, having eyes oriented toward viewing the horizon is indicative of being prey. Just a tidbit I learned last night. Cats: vertical slit pupils = predator. Goats: horizontal slit pupils = prey. The orientation of their focus is entirely different. The goat seeks the horizontal obstructions; the cat, the vertical prey. Cool, no?)
If man is happy to focus on the horizon, does that mean we are prey animals?
or does it indicate that we like to focus on the future?
Or both?
(or neither?)
Is it the mind's eye?
Clearly it is not literal.
(Or if it is, beats the hell outta me.)
I think there is more to it...
But Mousie, thou art no thy-lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!

Still, thou art blest, compar’d wi’ me!
The present only toucheth thee:
But Och! I backward cast my e’e,
On prospects drear!
An’ forward tho’ I canna see,
I guess an’ fear!
> The goat seeks the horizontal obstructions; the cat, the vertical prey
This raises more questions.
interesting ones, I think
01:16
Notice also that the eyes of prey animals are placed farther apart, resulting in a broader field of vision but a smaller area of 3D vision.
I think man focuses on the future. As long as they can imagine a future, they have hope.
That's true, too.
they can see more of the horizon.
It's not specially about the horizon as such.
...
Hmm.
Since we live on a plane, the only dimension in which we can increase our field of view to see more relevant things is that of width.
text...
text . . .
01:19
True, but it's interesting that they focus on the horizon; the horizon is how they escape.
Seeing more things in the air or on the ground is less relevant.
OK. I thought you lose the code font if you end the sentence with ellipsis.
It didn't work for me earlier.
Many prey animals live in places where there is no straight horizon.
a b c....
So I would rather say prey animals have a broader field of view, because they need to spot the unseen, the unexpected, whereas predators care less about animals they failed to spot: instead, they care more about focusing on one thing at a time really well, a prey.
01:20
true...
Birds have a particularly broad field of view.
While the horizon can be useful to spot predators by, as they contrast with the sky on flat land from afar, this is less relevant for birds.
They do not need to spot predators from afar, except other birds, which will rarely be on or near the horizon.
Elliptically. . . .
Carnivore birds probably have their eyes closer together (I don't know about the shape of their pupils?).
Vision is the most important sense for birds, since good eyesight is essential for safe flight, and this group has a number of adaptations which give visual acuity superior to that of other vertebrate groups; a pigeon has been described as "two eyes with wings". The avian eye resembles that of a reptile, with ciliary muscles that can change the shape of the lens rapidly and to a greater extent than in the mammals. Birds have the largest eyes relative to their size within the animal kingdom, and movement is consequently limited within the eye's bony socket. In addition to the two eyelids us...
01:25
We examined pupil shape in over 200 animals and related it to activity time, foraging
mode, and height. Clear correlations emerged. Round pupils occur in tall or diurnal
predators. Vertical elongation occurs in short, nocturnal predators; these animals
usually have forward-facing eyes and stereovision. Horizontally elongated pupils
occur in prey animals; they tend to have lateral eyes. We argue that vertical pupils
are well suited for using stereopsis to estimate distances of vertical contours and
eeep!
Hard to sneak up on pigeon.
@medica Interesting.
@tchrist Exactly.
That's just one paper, but I found several like it.
Humans are probably somewhere in the middle, a bit closer to owls?
> The performance of the eye in low light levels depends on the distance between the lens and the retina, and small birds are effectively forced to be diurnal because their eyes are not large enough to give adequate night vision.
01:28
Hmm is that really true?
Yet mammals have solved that problem
We can solve any problem.
We just feed our babies breast milk, done!
> Different animals have different fields of view, depending on the placement of the eyes. Humans have an almost 180-degree forward-facing horizontal field of view, while some birds have a complete or nearly complete 360-degree field of view. The vertical range of the field of view in humans is typically around 135 degrees.
The retina of nocturnal animals is almost entirely composed of rods. The other type of vision cells, cones, is absent or almost absent, leaving nocturnal animals with virtually no color vision. The photosensitive pigment inside the rods, rhodopsin, is particularly sensitive to low levels of light. During the day, in a daylight adapted eye, the rhodopsin breaks down so rapidly, it is ineffective for visual perception.
At night-time, in the rod-rich eyes of dark-adapted animals, rhodopsin is created faster than it breaks down. Therefore, the threshold of light needed to stimulate the eye is reduced. It is just a minute fraction of the light needed to activate a cone cell for vision during the day.
@tchrist Just as I thought.
01:30
... the tapetum lucidum (meaning "bright carpet"), an adaptation for night vision. The tapetum is a thick reflective membrane, 15 cells wide, directly beneath the retina. It collects and re-emits light back to the retina a second time, giving the rods a second chance to absorb the image information, thus maximizing the little light available to them. As this light is reflected off the tapetum, the animal's eyes appear to glow.
this is how mammals solved it.
Virtually all mammals have only two kinds of cones, because we passed through an evolutionary needle-eye in which we were all tiny nocturnal critters who had no need of tetrachromacy.
> The range of visual abilities is not uniform across a field of view, and varies from animal to animal. For example, binocular vision, which is important for depth perception, covers only 114 degrees (horizontally) of the field of vision in humans;[2] the remaining peripheral 60-70 degrees have no binocular vision (because only one eye can see those parts of the field of view). Some birds have a scant 10 or 20 degrees of binocular vision.
@medica We're smart. By the way, you can post a long text in one line by adding shift-enter anywhere in your text.
oh, thanks!
> . In addition to these muscles, some birds also have a second set, Crampton’s muscles, that can change the shape of the cornea, thus giving birds a greater range of accommodation than is possible for mammals.
@tchrist ...and the corners of our eyes are very imprecise, whereas the "yellow spot" in the centre is very precise.
01:33
@Cerberus You can only read a few degrees wide. That’s all that counts.
You nocturnal critter.
No rods in the human foveola.
@tchrist How will you find your book, then?
The spot in the center (the macula) is cone dense. The rods are better at night.
Lots in the periphery.
01:34
yep.
@Cerberus Can’t read in the dark.
> Rods are more sensitive to light, but give no colour information, whereas the less sensitive cones enable colour vision. In diurnal birds, 80% of the receptors may be cones (90% in some swifts) whereas nocturnal owls have almost all rods.
that's why older people complain about their night vision.
> In 54% of birds, including birds of prey, kingfishers, hummingbirds and swallows, there is second fovea for enhanced sideways viewing.
If your vision were limited to your macula, you would be unable to locate the book you wanted to read.
@medica Don’t. Get. Me. Started.
01:35
.........eeep!
Light is cheap.
(solution!)
Old people complain about their night vision because... Old people complain.
@Cerberus Um, no.
Haha.
01:36
@Mitch hahahaha
That isn’t the point, at all.
Hahahaha.. Shit I'm old
The older you get, the less you can see in the dark and the longer it takes for you to become night-adapted (don’t make me use big words).
Which means that when driving at night, you can’t see diddly squat.
01:37
yes, because we lose rods and cones...
Ah, driving.
I've seen diddly. It's not as impressive as you think.
Take the train!
And those long lovely walks at night through the forest down to the lake become something of children’s nightmares.
but if you use your peripheral vision, just off the center, you "see" much better.
01:38
Bus for the win!
Contacts also make you see less clearly in the dark. I think it is because something changed about the refraction of (bright) lights.
@tchrist I live in the woods. Summer is hard. I can't see at night to walk the dogs.
@medica Yes, I have noticed this.
That's why they're always looking sideways at you.
@Cerberus I am going to banish you to one of our national wilderness areas and make you walk out of it. You just cannot think outside your infernal conurbation!
01:38
but looking off to the side helps me a lot.
@tchrist We have fires everywhere! No need for darkness!
Why waste the light when people are being tortured?
Summer should be better right with the light out late.
-1
A: What is the meaning of the phrase "Land Sakes"?

Peter Mellomto MT_Head-If the deity can't see our motives then what's the point? Is that the question? Perhaps it is only by God's Grace that we see and understand our own motives at all. We are separated from the animals only because we reason. Pascal, I'm sure, would wager his genius that we are the bet...

ummm...
some people evangelize. all. the. time.
I am so sick and tired of having to protect every damned question from these spammers!!
We should just protect all of ELU, damn their eyes!
01:41
lock it!
I’ve protected close to 450 questions, and there is no end to these people.
They probably think they're answering the question directly
they do, trust me.
everything is about God. Everything.
Close the site!
Amen, Brother! Preach it!
Some of my best friends are women and are also misogynists, but their attitude is more visceral--mine is an academic belief system supplemented by experience. But I like Mari-Lou. — user3847 1 hour ago
01:43
Thank you for recognizing my divine status.
you're welcome.
@medica Haha, definitely nuts.
And he likes Mari-Lou, of all people. I mean, she is a bit of a feminist sometimes, if I remember correctly. I don't mean that as "who would like Mari-Lou!" but as "what misogynist would like Mari-Lou!".
I know right?
I don't care for him.
What was your first line?
I need to be a room owner, so I can see deleted lines.
Oh, funny.
01:47
@Cerberus a stupid mysogynist.
A failed misogynist.
@Cerberus I can't see deletions. Only mods can, or so I'm told.
It is a contradiction in terms.
in which category he seems to fall... maybe
@Robusto Click the arrow thingy, then "history".
01:47
@Cerberus Contradictions are usually in terms.
Are they?
@Cerberus So it does. Interesting.
That is basically the only worthy regale that comes with the title.
I do enjoy making people pay to use the restroom, though.
(The singular os regalia.)
You make a lovely loo girl, with that apron.
01:50
I am no loo girl.
Then why are people paying you?
Are you a fraud??
Hey, I'm running a business here. Business is about subterfuge, of a sort. Think of it as magic.
Naturally.
I don't get the room description...
Sleight of hand, by which I make coins disappear from your pocket.
01:51
@Robusto I knew it! You’re making nuclear weapons!
@Alraxite I think it is rather arbitrary. Or based on some context we didn't see.
nuclear -> unclear
Hah.
@tchrist - your new delete tool is working too well. All those examples were deleted within a couple of hours.
@Cerberus Help vampires.
01:52
There's a room description? I thought we're just ... here.
@Cerberus OK.
@tchrist So...we are the restroom here?
And what is the potential payment?
I think you mean "Help! Vampires!"
I don't think they can help you.
@medica And miles to go before I sleep.
01:53
Except when you are in need of being sucked.
lovely, dark and deep...
@Cerberus Not doing your yoga again, I see.
I knew you would comment on that, but I don't get it.
It can be a real bear, I know, especially in Jellystone.
Brain yoga?
01:54
@medica the top ten were all me. When I voted to delete they all flipped from "2 delete votes" to "undelete"
good job!
@Cerberus You’re a dog: you should know these things.
Ohh that.
I think some animals actually do that.
Of course they do.
Like your yogi instructor used to say "when you come to a fork in the road, take it"
01:56
0
A: Preventative vs. preventive

BryanNot knowing the etymology, I have always instinctively preferred the form 'preventive'. I think it comes from an engineering background that, all else being equal, biases me toward the most fundamental form of anything. I wonder if the form 'preventative' was originally created for dramatic eff...

Is that an answer to the question?
I rather think it is not.
It's a crap answer if so
It’s not like I disagree with him or something.
But it still is lame.
Well, all he's saying is he likes preventive
which is not an answer.
02:00
and I like preventative, right.
@cornbreadninja麵包忍者 hi
’Nuff said.
blushes furiously
wait, that's unamerican!
applies blush to match
ah, well, I tried
@tchrist Where are you searching that?
so this.
02:06
@Alraxite À la recherche des mots perdus
money just edged out sex...
@medica I can’t make the damned thing stop talking to me in French, but I am pretty sure that Fight! is illegal en France.
@tchrist proust -> sprout
:D
L'academie is everywhere
opens up half eaten sandwich
02:10
@Alraxite I don't even
Oh la la!
@tchrist So is this an answer that should stay around on your site? I'm not sure.
@tchrist Those numbers don't even agree with what I get on Google
Not to imply that google's numbers are anything to go by
"an HP laptop" sends more results than "an HP"
(with quotes)
@medica C’est l’Académie Française.
@hichris123 I don’t think it is an actual answer.
@tchrist I'm tempted to flag it as spam, but it's not really... maybe NAA?
02:19
it's gone...
@hichris123 I NAA-flagged it.
02:44
 
6 hours later…
08:29
@AndrewLeach - are you here? Can you hear?
I'm at work, so no sound.
have you been looking at flags? (sorry, won't ping.)
A few. Why?
Doesn't matter about pinging: my sound's turned off (which is what I meant).
I'm curious. A few flags have been declined just recently, but the comments have disappeared,
ah, ok.
so it seems the flagging was appropriate, but the flags were declined.
If it was you, I thought maybe you could explain why this is happening.
If a comment is flagged as offensive but is actually not constructive, it's a close call about how it's dealt with. It also depends (I think; I'm still getting used to it) exactly how the flag is dealt with.
Offensive should really be reserved for direct insults and obviously offensive words.
08:36
I don't understand the ins and outs of how you all judge the merit of a flag. How offensive does it need to be? The guy states he hates women?
He's a card carrying misogynist who "learned from experience". I mean, is that not offensive? What are the site guidelines on offensive language? I thought it was about disrespect.
That reflects more on him, and is purely a statement. Offensive would be (for example) using four-letter words to describe women.
That is not what the site's guidelines say.
Let me bring it up with other mods to see if I've misinterpreted them.
To me, it is offensive to women.
Do we wait until we are called c**** to be offended?
Should I flag as not constructive instead?
I did see that. That was one of the words I would certainly call offensive.
08:41
Clearly the comments were removed.
I would recommend not constructive if the comment adds nothing of value.
Can't we be a tiny bit offended before it reaches that point?
"Civility is required at all times"
and I hate women is not civil.
He's been quite civil in enunciating his position.
08:42
civil? no. Eloquent, perhaps.
If he said he hates gays, is that civil?
OK. I'll take this away and bring it up with others to see if I'm being too lenient.
is saying he hates gays civil?
I'll take this away and bring it up with others to see if I'm being too lenient
How does it differ?
Seriously. I've been here for 7 months. In that time, I've raised 700+ helpful flags. 27 (? I think) have been declined. Now they're almost all being declined.
I don't know when to flag and when to let it go anymore. And you're saying it's civil as long as he's using no four letter words.
I can't speak for others at at the moment. I'll take this away and bring it up with others to see if I'm being too lenient on comments.
08:49
I'm not asking you to speak for the other mods. I want to know what you think civility means.
Who is the bad guy?
This user has been spreading ugliness across the site. But because he's enunciating it well, then it's civil?
@JohanLarsson the bitch/bitch guy.
ok I never read on main so no idea
Civility means being polite. Incivility is not the same as expressing disagreeable opinions. Disagreeable opinions are almost entirely certain to be non-constructive in the context of a question or answer. I'm not going to discuss it further here now. I'll take this away and bring it up with others to see if I'm being too lenient on comments.
!!define lenient
08:56
@JohanLarsson lenient Lax; tolerant of deviation; permissive; not strict.

« first day (1329 days earlier)      last day (3889 days later) »