Posts
This is and was always intended to be a joke. It would seem that the joke is on us though. Go figure.
So what will the future have in store? My crystal ball is foggy. It's just too close to call.
Uh, Tower, US Air 2998, ‘til we figure out what’s going on down there, we’re just going to stay clear of all runways.
I'm with US Air 2998 on this one.
See Also:
Stimulus Physics
Stimulus Physics Update #1
Stimulus Physics Update #2
Trend Line Disclaimer
Source Data:
Yahoo: Historical Prices for Dow Jones Industrial Average
7 comments:
This was a terrible incident on a runway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_disaster
Scary stuff.
GYSC,
From your link...
"The sudden fog greatly limited visibility."
There was a similarly terrible incident in our stock market this month. ;)
Fat fingered fog? Is that a real thing?
GYSC,
Fat fingered fog? Is that a real thing?
It is. We have a fat fingered oil slick in the Gulf right now. And we had fat fingered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We had fat fingered bank bonuses.
Worse still the Phillies had a phat fingered loss to the Bosox yesterday - GRRRRRR!
It's all about dumbing it down to sound bites and inane explanations. It's all about lowering the bar.
Hey, let's face it, the fat finger thing works.
GYSC & mab,
We got the Fat Finger Blues.
Mark,
that dude needs a slide if he is gonna play real blues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0QKbnCDW94
Mab,
How low can you go, on the hand jive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doujhGmCwbY
I may have moved from a Wikipedia addiction to the more dangerous Youtube addiction. Wiki is a gateway drug!!!!!!!!!
GYSC,
I may have moved from a Wikipedia addiction to the more dangerous Youtube addiction. Wiki is a gateway drug!!!!!!!!!
The best part about Wiki is that some of the information isn't even remotely accurate and it is up to the reader to figure that out, lol.
That said...
December 15, 2005
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.
Post a Comment