To: Termite_Commander
"The substance itself is light-years ahead of glass," said 1st Lt. Joseph La Monica, who heads the research. Should a man who uses the term 'light-year' to describe a unit of time be in charge of research?
To: opinionator
light-years - LOL, good one.
18 posted on
10/19/2005 8:53:37 PM PDT by
KingKongCobra
(The "Donner Party" can just go eat themselves)
To: opinionator
Science geeks tend to misuse terminology or use bad examples when we take science speak and turn it into something everyone can understand.
One of my many failed analogies was comparing a new IPsec tunneling protocol back in college to a Twinkie during a presentation. I think i got an E for effort on that one.
Of course this gap between technobable and understandable english lead to the invention of the marketing department :)
21 posted on
10/19/2005 9:03:33 PM PDT by
tfecw
(It's for the children)
To: opinionator
Should a man who uses the term 'light-year' to describe a unit of time be in charge of research? I'd say it's a more extreme version of being "miles" ahead of the competition, and thus a distance measure is appropriate.
22 posted on
10/19/2005 9:03:33 PM PDT by
supercat
(Don't fix blame--FIX THE PROBLEM.)
To: opinionator
No, because saying something is [a distance unit] ahead of something else makes perfect sense, eg:
The substance itself is miles ahead of glass.
To: opinionator
>>>
Should a man who uses the term 'light-year' to describe a unit of time be in charge of research?<<< Perhaps he meant light-year in the sense it is a measure of distance; as in, "aluminium oxyinitrite is a real fur piece ahead of glass".
I think he's probably bright enough to do his job.
56 posted on
12/04/2005 8:23:49 PM PST by
HardStarboard
(Read Stephen Hayes "Spooked White House" - Weekly Standard. It explains a an awful lot.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson