Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/09/2009 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    There's an overwhelming over-abundance of more than enough information. And that's just in any single frame of the video. Consider all of the content of all of the frames, and there are multiple, layered, redundant means of determining whether or not any entity, attribute, action or effect seen in any frame conforms to reality. The space, the objects within it, and the motions are all precisely measurable. Then add all of the visual information from other cameras at other vantage points... Each participant on this thread who has commented on the visual evidence is right about some things, yet wrong about others. The issue is not that the visual evidence is insufficient, but that none of you has the technical knowledge to be making any conclusions, or to be dismissing anyone else's observations or concerns, or to be throwing accusations of kookiness or conspiracy theorizing at anyone who thinks that something in a photo looks a bit odd. J
  2. 3 points
    https://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-milkyway-over-beaverhill-county-jestephotography-ltd.html Something a lil different than my Wildlife photography. Nikon Z7 mirrorless with a Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 Art series lens for Astrophotography.
  3. 3 points
    I hope my posts get a lot of sads (from the anti-Trump bitches!)
  4. 2 points
    Last July Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard published “Regarding Carl Barney and Scientology” in defense of Barney. That didn’t satisfy some of his readers so a few days ago he published a Part Two, same webpage as what is now called Part One. I review it at: Barney Continues Telling His Story
  5. 2 points
    They're being softened up for committing ritual suicide. Ellen
  6. 2 points
    Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
  7. 2 points
    By Ron Unz, the latest in his American Pravda series: John McCain, Jeffrey Epstein, and Pizzagate “Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings” It’s long but the lucid style makes it easy to read.
  8. 2 points
    It's true that the strategy isn't going to work, but "dealing with climate change" isn't what it's aimed at. Ruling the world is. Ellen
  9. 2 points
    I'm not here to defend the morality of most self-proclaimed secularists (I should add, secularism is merely one political position, not a whole ideology in and of itself. Objectivism is a secular philosophy that promotes secularism, after all). I think you're going off topic. The reality is that "being good without god" is a significant question that many theists ponder. Natural Law provided an answer to that question. And Christians/Evangelicals never appealed to the state to enshrine their values? Evangelical Christianity in particular has been resolutely illiberal. They only defend classical liberalism when convenient for them, or when they're losing a culture war. When they're in power, they have shown a consistent tendency towards using the state to enforce their beliefs on others. Not that most members of the secular left are any better. But again, that isn't the point.
  10. 2 points
    Sunny Lohmann hosts a podcast featuring Ed Powell and Ed Mazlish: youtube.com/watch?v=995Riq8JdUo
  11. 2 points
    Many of them sincerely believe, it’s just that they want you to die, first. They want your home burned down and turned back to prairie. Then they can enjoy earth with a smaller, sustainable population. How many who oppose pipelines have turned off their pipeline? None. That would be suicide.
  12. 2 points
    One of the general differences between those on the left and right is that the right understands the left's views... You can see this with their parody and satire. Leftist characters are portrayed accurately, and sometimes, right-wing media creators can even explain the left's views better than actual leftists. The parody and satire created by leftists, though, is consistently egregious--like the description of Jussie Smollett's attackers, for example (pretty much every right leaning person knew it was bullshit immediately). Again, it's a generalization. Obviously not all right-wingers understand the left's talking points, but for the most part, they get it... while for the left, the opposite is true. They can't even conceive of what they are arguing against. So what you end up with is ignorant, and possibly stupid, people who the right is gently trying to point out as ignorant and stupid... which reaffirms the leftist's belief that people on the right are immoral (mean). Obviously accusing someone of being immoral is worse than accusing someone of being stupid... so it's insane. This is pretty much just venting... but it's really annoying that this is the case. Politics has become a chore where people with good ideas have to hold the hands of their attackers to help them see what they're missing.
  13. 2 points
  14. 2 points
    You are saying either A always causes B, or A never causes B. It can't be A caused B in this particular case. Causes have contexts. The elderly woman in my example probably had weak bones. The weak bones would be a context. It is not necessary to say vaccination always causes autism in order to say vaccination caused autism in this case.
  15. 2 points
    The suicide note left by Fidel Castro’s eldest son has rocked the Cuban nation this week, with the most astonishing revelation being the claim that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was his half-brother and the son of the late Fidel Castro. http://whatsupic.com/index/cuba-justin-trudeau-fidel-castros-son/
  16. 2 points
  17. 2 points
    So today I had an interesting post on my twitter feed. A person looking to purchase a rights managed image for an add campaign. So I sent her my personal email via Message in order to get more details. i sent her a link to the image she wanted and ten minutes later BAM! https://fineartamerica.com/saleannouncement.html?id=9becce4a0811b1bc99e633e17bff67ee Kinda cool eh?
  18. 2 points
    Alex Jones is a fighter. He will kick their asses so hard that they will have to clear their throat to fart. They will wish to God they never tangled with Alex Jones.
  19. 2 points
    The perjury trap ...
  20. 2 points
  21. 2 points
    Heh. Why pick on InfoWars? Sure, it's often goofy, but it's really no more goofy than anything else. CNN, New York Times, Time. It's equal to or possibly a little less goofy that The View, Dan Rather and any of the former Democrat politicians and operatives who are now calling themselves "journalists" (like George Stephanopoulos, for example). Why single out InfoWars? MSK is supposed to be embarrassed by his goof balls while the other side reveres theirs and pretends that they're not good balls?
  22. 2 points
    Can a person really be economically coerced, or is it simply a choice? Was Cohen using the tapes for insurance or a way to blackmail President Trump? Can he be disbarred? In Maryland I don’t think you can record someone unless they know what your are doing. Peter From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 01:29:41 -0500 a.d. smith wrote: "Recently, I was arguing with an anarcho-socialist friend about fundamental political and ethical principles. I had stated that I was opposed to the use of force in social relations (except in retaliation). He said that I was inconsistent in that I was not opposed to the use of "economic coercion" (e.g., the threat of firing someone) as well as physical force. I was wondering how my fellow Atlanteans would reply to this argument I think I did a fairly good job in elucidating the differences between physical force and "economic coercion," but I could have done better. What would you guys have said in this situation?” I find that well-constructed examples and counter-examples can sometimes communicate the distinction better than abstract arguments, or at least serve as an introduction to them. Many years ago, during a college seminar on Marxism, my professor gave the following popular example: Suppose I am stranded in the middle of the desert, and I run across the only oasis in my vicinity. It is privately owned, and the owner tells me that I must (a) work for him at fifty cents per hour, or (b) stay off his property. And since he is charging $5,000 for the food and water that are required to sustain my life during the remainder of my journey, this means that I am being economically coerced -- indeed, enslaved -- since I must either accept the offer or face certain death. I responded by changing one condition of the example. The same oasis owner has more money than he knows what to do with, so (as before) he tells me that I must take a job to earn my supplies, but he now offers me $10,000 per hour instead of fifty cents. So now I can earn what I need in 30 minutes (during which the owner, who is starved for intellectual companionship, only requests that I talk to him about philosophy) and even walk away with a handsome surplus. The professor then protested, "But that's not a realistic example." "Neither is your example," I replied, "but that's not the point. The purpose of the example is to isolate the key elements that generate what you call economic coercion. If your example, in which I am economically coerced to work for 50 cents an hour is valid, then so is my example where I am economically coerced to work for $10,000 per hour by discussing philosophy. I didn't change anything essential in the hypothetical; all I did was change some details, which should be irrelevant to the point you are making. So if you claim that my example doesn't qualify as economic coercion, then why doesn't it? I will die just as surely if I turn down the offer for $10,000 as if I refuse to work for fifty cents. What's the difference? According to your definition, I am being coerced in either case -- but it sounds a little strange to say that I am being 'forced' to work at the higher wage. You are loading the example in your favor by including very low wages, but the amount of the wage is immaterial to the point you wish to make. Surely the validity of your argument should not depend solely on its emotional appeal, so it should make equal sense to take about a wage-slave who is forced to discuss philosophy at $10,000 per hour." I don't remember my exact words, of course, but the preceding is a fair representation of my argument. It took the discussion in some interesting directions that might otherwise have been overlooked – such as whether the CEO of a multinational corporation is also economically "coerced" to accept his multi-million dollar salary -- and the discussion ended when the Marxist professor said, "Well, I'll have to give some additional thought to your example." That's about as close to an unconditional surrender as a student is ever likely to get from a professor. Ghs From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 04:40:33 EDT A. D. Smith wrote "Recently, I was arguing with an anarcho-socialist friend about fundamental political and ethical principles. I had stated that I was opposed to the use of force in social relations (except in retaliation). He said that I was inconsistent in that I was not opposed to the use of "economic coercion" (e.g., the threat of firing someone) as well as physical force.” There is no such thing as "economic coercion." We owe it to people not to use force against them; we do not owe it to them to supply them with employment nor to keep them employed if we do not choose to. People have a right to seek jobs; they do not have a right to *have* jobs if the employer finds them unsuitable. So to threaten an employee with firing is in no sense of the term "coercion." The job is not his by right, but only by the decision of the owner of the business. Barbara From: "a.d. smith" To: "George H. Smith" Subject: Re: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 05:06:07 -0400 (EDT) On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, George H. Smith wrote: The example of the oasis brings up my friend's second basic argument --- the possibility that first-comers may claim all the natural resources in an area to the detriment of people who arrive in the area later. These people may hold their property without improving or with mixing only a token portion of their labor with it.(I pointed that historically most examples of land speculation of this type were made possible by the state, but his point was that even in a stateless society, this type of engrossing could be possible. My reply was that under a system of competing governments, a protection agency that enforced an obviously illegitimate claim to unimproved natural resources would likely arose the anger of the community at large). From: "William Dwyer" To: Atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:34:02 -0700 a.d. smith wrote, >The example of the oasis brings up my friend's second basic argument --- the possibility that first-comers may claim all the natural resources in an area to the detriment of people who arrive in the area later. These people may hold their property without improving or with mixing only a token portion of their labor with it. > I fail to see how this is an argument against capitalism, since capitalism doesn't sanction this kind of unearned appropriation. In order to acquire property under capitalism, you need to mix your labor with a previously unowned resource, or acquire the property from its previous owner by mutual consent. Obviously, there are issues with regard to the specifics of acquiring previously unowned land, but these cannot form the basis of any serious argument against capitalism. I n any case, the Coase Theorem in economics (for which Ronald Coase was given the Nobel Prize) states that if property rights are clearly defined and transaction costs are low, resources will tend to flow towards their highest valued uses, regardless of who owns them. In other words, even assuming that people could appropriate land without mixing their labor with it, in a free-market economy, the land could be bid away in exchange for money. The highest bid would tend to reflect its most profitable uses, by reflecting what consumers would be most willing to spend their money on. Thus, under capitalism, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference how the property is initially acquired. It will eventually be allocated toward its most popular and desired uses. If laissez-faire capitalism existed in Latin America, for example, the large landed aristocracies would not last, because they would either be induced to sell their land at an exorbitant price, or to use it in ways that are the most profitable and consumer-friendly. Bill
  23. 2 points
  24. 2 points
    Folks , Trump did not win an election but orchestrate a coup d’etat against the establishment . This ain’t left and right , nor liberals and conservatives . It’s We The People v The Establushment Bullets are not the weapon of choice in this Revolution , it’s memes . I called this a Revolution near the beginning of the thread . I thought that the establishment would win , hence I called for Rubio to win the nomination . Trump won , he is digging in and personally , I would love to see The Constitution to be amended to give him three terms , but that cannot happen so hopefully President Ivanka will continue what we have started in 2024 . Who is Donald Trump ? Reread Atlas Shrugged
  25. 1 point
    What's especially disturbing to me about the alleged professionals diagnosing Trump (and his followers) is that their descriptions of their alleged observations don't match reality. They speak of constant "tantrums," "meltdowns," "tirades," and such, to describe Trump's calm explanations of his disagreement with his political opponents. They infer the worst possible motives in any statement that he makes, assign those motives to him despite evidence to the contrary, and then judge his mental health based on nothing but those hostile inferences and false assignations. These are people who are practicing mental health professionals. It appears that climatology isn't the only profession which has been polluted by political activism. J
  26. 1 point
    "Former Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates may not be able to escape Epstein-gate after all, after it was revealed last week that the billionaire traveled with Jeffrey Epstein on his infamous 'Lolita Express' Boeing 727 in 2013 - four years after Epstein served time for pedophilia. "In addition to Gates - other famous figures who flew aboard the Lolita Express include legendary newsman Walter Cronkite, architect Peter Marino, and of course Bill Clinton, Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker and Prince Andrew. " https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-22/why-did-bill-gates-fly-epsteins-lolita-express-after-pedophiles-prison-stint
  27. 1 point
    If Epstein were murdered, with the stage subsequently set to make it look like a suicide by hanging, the perpetrators would have made it appear it was an accidental hanging, specifically a case of auto-erotic asphyxiation. Because reasons. But they didn’t, so it wasn’t a murder. QED. Moron or lunatic? http://sorbusaucuparius.blogspot.com/2012/08/umberto-ecos-four-types-of-idiot.html Hint: no reference (above) to the Templars. But seriously, if evidence of a struggle emerges, such as injuries to the hands, fingernails etc, then the probability space will have to be reallocated. Jeffrey Dahmer and John Geoghan were murdered in prison, but neither death was confused with suicide. As it is, suicide is the most likely explanation for the facts we have.
  28. 1 point
    Lesson of the day kids! If you are bullied just remember and repeat after Grandpa Jon. “You deserve it!”
  29. 1 point
    Jon, We disagree on this. But, once again, that's what we're here for. Humans disagree. I'm fine with disagreeing. (Most of the time. ) Michael
  30. 1 point
    And you know coooos, Frenchy? How do you know coooos? You do know drunken gutter English, Jon. Poor soul has lost his way.
  31. 1 point
    Here is a link to my song "Ave Maria (Ellen's Prayer)" as performed March 10 in Minneapolis. The singer is Christina Christensen, mezzo-soprano (https://www.facebook.com/ccmezzosoprano) and the pianist is Emily Urban (https://www.facebook.com/emilylurban). (I am not sure how long this link will remain active; I will post a permanent link later. However, the audio file can be downloaded from this link.) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MXQSi8JqBFqXL4CszL7I38c4jEsLaQhZ/view
  32. 1 point
    Be still my heart .... Conspiracy Theorists Will Have a Field Day With a Redacted Mueller Report. History shows that skeptics seize on redacted information to fuel their theories. By Brendan Nyhan ... reading the article to this song from the Glory Days, Sylvester.
  33. 1 point
    Jon, The new message on the "Site down" page doesn't sound much like him, either. And if it is him, it sounds coerced or dictated by someone else. I don't think anyone is holding him in a room or something like that, but I do think there are government people telling him he will not be allowed to keep his site online, and I believe they might be threatening him with jail time. This is speculation, but it sounds about right to me. btw - There never used to be any such drivel as a Solo pledge like the one above. Not that I remember. Here are the two texts that he Perigo used for this kind of message (I got them off older copies of the site.) And this: I can't believe I am defending Lindsay fucking Perigo, but life is weird at times. And this is a time for principle. Michael
  34. 1 point
    I am not here to use OL as a platform for waging war even if only words. But I'm not here to bury reality either which is why I read very little WSS. --Brant
  35. 1 point
    Pretty obvious Jon gets to say whatever he wants without repercussion. Pretty sad how he asked questions about my childhood and me being me just answered knowing fully that he only did so in order to attack me at a later date. A small part of me actually was hoping that it was not what he was going to be doing but being the sociopath that he is I knew he couldn’t help himself. MSK.. that lil flame war would have even made Perigo blush. Just sayin..
  36. 1 point
    http://m.digitaljournal.com/news/world/bush-grandpa-traded-with-enemy-for-3-years-before-assets-seized/article/424715 Here ya go Brant 😊
  37. 1 point
    Whenever I roll a wine bottle it shatters instantly. This is because the neck is trying to rotate at a different rate, and does. Are you saying that when you roll a wine bottle it doesn’t shatter? I’ll have to see a video of that.
  38. 1 point
    Yeah, they can't deal with it. And the animated version that you requested, provided here, won't help them either: Length AB is equal to length EF, as well as to length CD, but not to length GH. Point E on the smaller circle contacts Line 2 at point G. Point F contacts Line 2 at point H. Point A contacts Line 1 at Point C. Point B contacts Line 1 at point D. History's math eggheads, who happened to be visuospatially/mechanically inept, got all eggheady about infinite single points, and, jeepers, they couldn't figure out shit because any one point on one circle corresponds with a point on the other circle! Heh. So, instead of limiting ourselves to single geometric points (which do not have any length, area, volume or any other dimensional attribute), and thus remaining retarded math eggheads, let's put pairs of points at a specific distance apart on both circles! Yay! What does it show? Merlin? Tony? Heh. They still won't get it. J
  39. 1 point
    I have one more thing to say, Peter. I have been the subject of rather extreme incivility here at OL on several occasions and I do not recall you saying one word in those cases. If you continue like that - saying nothing when I am viciously attacked, but then waiting until I lose patience with some snippy dolt who can’t visualize or conceptualize or otherwise analyse rolling - then the positive way I see you is going to change.
  40. 1 point
    Damn, another one.
  41. 1 point
    These people are so dumb and ignorant they think the ice in their brains will melt because of AGW. If only. --Brant I'd love to tell her the Titanic sank because of CC and watch her run with that
  42. 1 point
  43. 1 point
    The first step in grasping what is really going on is to grasp that no MSM outlet will ever come out and say what is really going on. Look at their behavior over decades - they are not neutral but are soldiers in a war, Some people are only halfway through this step: they understand that the real answer will not come from MSM, but they still consume a lot of MSM and they subconsciously accept the constructs they consume. But the constructs are utterly false and their acceptance derails any chance at seeing the truth even if they happened upon it. In this case the construct is that the Saudis and Canadians are disputing about Canadian human rights criticism of the Saudis. The Saudis can’t take criticism, so they are going berserk, throwing out diplomats and immediately going to nuclear trade war. A simpleton readily accepts all the above construct because he has met such people. Cashiers at cheap stores, the popcorn guy at the movies - “people like that are everywhere, I know because I’ve met many of them.” The simpleton accepts the construct and then the entire explanation provided. There is really nothing here to investigate or understand, he concludes, just some abusive tyrants who can’t take criticism and are choosing to wreck economies and international relations, instead. The non-simpleton rejects the entire construct. The non-simpleton understands the Saud family have been in power in the most cutthroat part of the world for about one hundred years. They are among the most wealthy and powerful people on the planet. Criticism of them is constant, anyway. The chance that the construct reflects reality is precisely zero. And yet the Saudis do seem to be going hard on the Canadians, as though something very big is happening - so what can we conclude? Something very big is happening.
  44. 1 point
    LOLOL... I found this on the Interwebs somewhere. Michael
  45. 1 point
    Um, wrong again. More lefty Narrative and projection. I had a fabulous childhood, I love life, and I love creating, producing, laughing. I love people, I enjoy getting together with friends and neighbors regularly to share each other's company, and I love to voluntarily give of my time, effort and money to people in need, including to new arrivals to my nation and state on a personal, one on one, face to face basis. I help. Me. I don't try to get moral credit for just having an opinion and for voting that someone else should be forced to pay for what I've decided that I want done. So don't try your smear tactics on me. Don't try to justify your anger and your shit ideology by trying to paint me as something that I'm not, like you do constantly with Trump, the Koch brothers, and anyone else who is taking away your side's power to abuse mankind. Carol, you advocate the use of physical force to compel people against their will to serve your hateful political beliefs. It doesn't get any more regressive and unattractive than that. You resent the idea of people escaping control and the punishments that you want to inflict on them. Often, you express a sense of glee at the prospect of punishing others. Someone has produced more than you, and they are therefore disgusting and need to be brought down. That's your ugly ideology. Heh. How fucked up of a childhood must a person have had to work as hard and to do as much lying and spinning as you do in order to try to justify your rage about being stripped of some of your power to punish your betters. It's really cool watching Trump trigger you and your ideological ilk. J
  46. 1 point
    I certify that it is impossible to know a woman after five minutes, five years, or five decades. They have movable parts.
  47. 1 point
    Alan Dershowitz has from extensive readings of his articles, been my favorite thinker on the Left. I wonder if he isn't miscast as "progressive left", nowadays, or especially if he is not recently reconsidering this position in the light of what he now has seen of the progressive left. Properly, I think he should be considered a classical liberal. Certainly, he "calls it as he sees it", without fear or favor, that is, objective and principled.
  48. 1 point
    Not. Gonna. Stop. Former President George H.W. Bush in intensive care https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/politics/george-hw-bush/index.html
  49. 1 point
    I think that's just a matter of definition. As I said before: a paradox is an argument that leads to an apparent contradiction. The contradiction doesn't exist in reality, so there must be some error in the argument. One can solve the paradox by showing were the error in the argument lies. The bad argument, i.e. the paradox, doesn't disappear in my opinion, it has only been shown what was wrong in the argument Well-known paradoxes are for example those special-relativity paradoxes, such as the barn-pole paradox, which seem to imply contradictions in reality, by incorrectly supposing that simultaneity is an invariant. There is no contradiction, but the paradox does exist and is well-known. I think the quibble is about the distinction between a paradox and a contradiction.
  50. 1 point
    Technically Lindzen is correct. But blanket is a good analogy. Blankets keep your body from losing heat quickly on a cold night. The CO2, NH4 and H2O(g) slow down the rate at which IR energy is radiated into space. In effect they slow down the energy loss in the IR bands and make the equlibrium temperature of the earth with space somewhat higher. W.O. CO2 the temperature of the Earth with space would average around -15 deg C. With the amount of CO2 we have the a temperature that averages around 18 deg C. The CO2 absorbs energy in the IR band and radiates that energy to the surrounding cooler air and the ground. That accounts for the 33 deg difference. If the Sun went out CO2 or no CO2 the earth would eventually be at the temperature of space or maybe a little warmer because of some geothermal heat reaching the surface. The source of all warming on Earth is the Sun (ignoring the small geothermal output). Like all bodies at temperature above 0 K (absolute zero) it will radiate heat until temperature equilibrium with the surroundings is reached. It is the heat we get from the Sun that keeps us as warm as we are. Even if the doomsday sayers were right and the temperature of the Earth at the surface increased much further we would radiate out energy faster. This is the result of the Stefan Boltzmann law with says the rate at which body radiate energy is proportional to the 4 th power of the temperature difference between the body and its surrounding. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_equilibrium_temperature for details. This article has the mathematics of radiation.