Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/17/2018 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. 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
  4. 2 points
    They're being softened up for committing ritual suicide. Ellen
  5. 2 points
    Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 2 points
    Sunny Lohmann hosts a podcast featuring Ed Powell and Ed Mazlish: youtube.com/watch?v=995Riq8JdUo
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 2 points
  13. 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.
  14. 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/
  15. 1 point
    No one knows at the moment how the impeachment process will end up, though OL members will generally have in memory the Nixon and Clinton impeachment efforts for use in comparing and contrasting. At the present moment, nose-counting wonks have counted noses, providing spreadsheets of current House members who have indicated they support an impeachment inquiry. There is enough to agree articles of impeachment at last count -- if the process gets that far (see also the Politico breakdown of impeachment-supporters). I'll add in links to extant discussion in varied front-page threads and beef up a rough timeline [over the next couple of days]. The so-called whistleblower's "whistleblow" has been allowed to emerge in slightly redacted form -- Dated August 12, 2019: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6430376-Whistleblower-Complaint.html -- this is what is being examined in the House right now. Previously ... I'll ask that folks who may join in commentary here keep the personal insults to a minimum, if possible. Refer to the OL Posting Guidelines, please. Keys to understanding what may come down the pike is ... what has come down the pike already. In other words, a list of names of interest from roughly 2014 until now. Ukraine is at the nexus of the foreign-policy muddle between the United States and Russia. Names and entities to keep track and/or place on a timeline range from (presidents) Yanukovych, Poroschenko, Zelenskyy to prosecutors-general Yarema, Shokin, Sevruk, Lutsenko. For a reminder of what Ukrainian corruption looks like, the palatial estate of former president Yanukovych, who fled the country during the showdown known as "Euromaidan." At the risk of alienating a few readers, I'll be referring to a few 'mistrusted' writers and outlets who have cobbled together various timelines and constellations of events. interpretations and spin. Any timeline will be necessarily limited, but the simpler ones can be double-checked for factual, 'on the record' events. There are a lot of factors to be accounted for, suggestions entertained and claims tested. The most expansive timelines will come after the first spate of tell-all books whose "pitches" will be landing on editors' desks this week. An objectivist hierarchy of conceptual knowledge is more like a database than a list or timeline, maybe. This is kind of a first wrong stab at how various states could be tied to a index/timeline. Open question: how do you best organize 'what you know' or 'what is claimed' about the last five years of Ukrainian-USA-Russia-EU events? Foreign policy and corruption Russian interests, actions, explanations Associated timeline of events Date Ukraine President Ukraine Prosecutor Person of interest Cases adjudicated, abandoned, avoided (in US and Ukraine Trump -- campaign actors / Ukraine policy Trump administration Ukraine policy Cases of international significance. Meetings, contact, employment, associated suspicions 2012-2017 Manafort-Ukraine Manafort FARA
  16. 1 point
    Jon, Word has it Bolton was a rip-righteous leaker and that's why he was canned--the latest being leaks about meetings with the Taliban. Bolton's extensive media blast saying he quit instead of being fired lends credence to this idea. Bolton sure liked him some media... Michael
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 1 point
    The pupil has not demonstrated an understanding of “tiresome reading suggestion #34.” So much for in his own words. Worst fake professor ever. Cartman is a better fake cop. Cartman fakes having been in ‘Nam better than this.
  20. 1 point
  21. 1 point
    Lesson of the day kids! If you are bullied just remember and repeat after Grandpa Jon. “You deserve it!”
  22. 1 point
    Yes, thank you MSK for the book recommendation. ( I was hoping my implicit laziness would be enough to prod you into foregoing a due chastisement and giving up some goods : ) ) e-luddites unite !
  23. 1 point
    Jon, Because you don't win culture wars with bans. I'm playing the long game. You seem to prefer short term gratification. I won't be doing any podcasts with any leftie authoritarians, though. They went for the short term gratification and bans (social media and elsewhere). Now they're losing the culture war big time as they sell out to crony corporations just to stay relevant and they are too hate-filled to see it. Once their idiocy stops making money and/or power for the elitist establishment, they will go the way of Avenatti. Slower than him, granted, but the path is the same. Michael
  24. 1 point
    With all due respect, bullshit. The reality is you were born at the exact right time to be here now. I get you that the world is awful at times and people are a mess. But if you wallow in defeatism because of them, who won? You? Hell no. Snap out of that shit. You have a world to win. Or feel sorry for yourself and leave it to them. Your choice and your life. You won't get another so you can change your mind after it's gone. If you don't value yourself, nobody else will except those who pity you. Michael
  25. 1 point
    Someone left that cake out in the rain. I don't know if I can take it, it took so long to bake it and I'll never have the recipe again... oh no......
  26. 1 point
    How long do you think it will take to forget the name of the judge overseeing this decision, I'm not even aware of the name now. Any bets that person retires in say two years, just to be safe, and lives remarkable well on a judge's pension (?) , or am I just too cynical.
  27. 1 point
    It's worth it dude if you want to spoof the world. Wayne's World. Wayne's World.
  28. 1 point
    Thanks for the question. First, a link. Yes the number they are using is 6m, rather than .5m, but there are other assumptions being made by your question that are inaccurate. So I'll focus on those inaccuracies. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-could-rise-at-least-6-meters/ Yes, for 2C warming the middle of the road number is around .5m of SLR (sea level rise). This is not the amount of SLR you can expect once you've reached 2C warmer, it's the amount you can expect once the system has fully equilibriated and is back to being in dynamic balance. I say all that because we aren't there. We've warmed over 1C already, and there's currently another 1-1.5C of warming in the pipeline if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow. As we continue to increase co2 concentrations we are only adding more warming into that pipeline. I guess my main point here is it's an ok assumption that we might only rise .5m in 80 yrs, it's not ok to think that that is all the SLR that will occur. I also agree that 80yrs seems like a while for humans to migrate and adapt. However, many of the towns, cities, and villages that do lie within this danger zone of SLR aren't going to be salvageable. One can't simply relocate the city of Miami for example (although their issue is partly subsidence, I hope it's illustrative of the issue nonetheless). The other things that is glossed over by these statements and questions revolves around the inherent chaos of storm systems in these areas. Many coastal towns have been built to account for these storm surges safely. Be it through barriers or simply proximity to the coastline in more remote parts of the world, these natural and man-made barriers or going to prove to be less effective. This raises the long term costs and damages associated with SLR. Now, will we rise 6m? I hope not. That's very drastic change given the timespan. That's the key issue and concern behind AGW after all. It's not whether or not the ice caps have disappeared in the past, they have. It's not whether or not we've been warmer in the past, we have. It's not about whether or not co2 has been higher in the past, it has. The issues surrounding the current changes to the system is how quickly they are changing. The most recent mass extinction (PETM - Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum) event seems to most likely have been driven by a very large outgassing of methane. Methane is a more potent ghg than co2, however it has a relatively short lifecycle in the atmosphere. That's because methane (ch4) breaks down into co2 and water, and the co2 has a very long adjustment time in the atmosphere. So this co2 can have a very long and persistent effect. My reason for mentioning the PETM is the current rate of change far exceeds the rate's seen in the PETM. The 1C warming we've witnessed over the last 100yrs would have taken 2500yrs during the PETM, and it wiped out approx 50-60% of the biosphere. These mass extinction events don't happen literally overnight, only figuratively. Too much of the dismissal by individuals on the basis of lack of evidence, I think , is due to not witnessing a catastrophe due to AGW during their individual lifetime. My personal thoughts on it is that the human lifespan and experience isn't long enough for any individual to realize the full impacts of what is happening. Each subsequent generation going forward will see a slightly less productive, slightly more shallow biosphere. There won't be a morning that comes where all of humanity to wake up and realize something terrible has happened, like a bomb going off. It will be a much slower and more gradual slide and to me, that's more dangerous because it simply leaves the doors open to individuals to dismiss as some other cause.
  29. 1 point
    While we're asking stuff, I ask you to get a thorough psychiatric evaluation, and if you don't do it, I might call you such terrible names that you will go mad with terror and turn into a raving liberal. (Such are the heights of rational discourse on OL these days, apparently).
  30. 1 point
  31. 1 point
    As in, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"? It sounds like Hicks did the equivalent to a quote from Foucault.
  32. 1 point
    I promised Merlin that I would analyze his "solutions" to see if they were correct. Of course, Jonathan, Jon Letendre, and Max have already analyzed his "solutions," so my analysis won't really add anything new. Still, I need to make good on my promise. Here are Merlin's solutions as taken from the relevant Wikipedia page: Aristotle's paradox is related to the fact that it is possible to find a one-to-one mapping of all the points in an interval of a particular length to all of the points in an interval of a different length. Since none of the "solutions" above has anything to do with the actual paradox, they are not solutions to the paradox. In fact, the paradox is misstated in the quote above. The fact that the smaller circle moves a distance that is different from its circumference is a simple mechanical observation, not a paradox. Max gives the solution to the paradox above: That is of course the fallacy. The interval [0,2] contains infinitely many points, and infinity is not a natural number, therefore the notion of density doesn't work, as the density is also infinite, and 2 * ∞ = ∞. Cantor, cardinality, continuum and all that. It isn't surprising that people like Aristotle and Galileo didn't understand such things well. Therefore those helpless attempts to consider circles "jumping" or "waiting" to make up for differences in traveled distance in Aristotle's paradox. Because the number and density of points in an interval are infinite, it makes no sense to compare the number or density of points in a interval to the length of the interval. 2 * ∞ = ∞. One of the "solutions" given by Merlin, involves the use of cycloids. Although cycloids don't help with the solution of Aristotle's paradox, they can be used to help solve another problem that some people seem to be having, namely comprehending the fact that a wheel may be rotating and translating at the same time. First, I will note the fact (pointed out by Max in an earlier post) that if a wheel rolls without slipping, the point of the wheel in contact with the ground must be stationary at the moment of contact. Since the quote above makes reference to Mathworld, I will use the equations listed there except that I will use "r" or "R" for the radius of the circle. If R is the radius of the large circle and if it rolls on its line, then the motion of a point on its circumference is given by the parametric equations: x = R * (t - sin(t)) y = R * (1 - cos(t)) Those are the equations of the point that starts in the 6 o'clock position. Let (u, v) be the velocity of the point. Then (u, v) = (dx/dt, dy/dt) or u = R * (1 - cos(t)) v = R * sin(t) Now, we can observe that (u, v) = (0, 0) whenever t = 2 * π * k, for k = 0, 1, 2, ... In other words, the point is stationary whenever it returns to the 6 o'clock position. Now, consider a point on an inner circle of radius r < R that starts in the 6 o'clock position. As claimed above, the point does indeed describe a curtate cycloid given by the equations: x = R * t - r * sin(t) y = R - r * cos(t) Again, we can calculate the velocity of the point by taking derivatives: u = R - r * cos(t) v = r * sin(t) Since -1 <= cos(t) <= 1, we have R - r <= u <= R + r. Therefore, the horizontal component of the velocity is never equal to zero. In fact, it is always strictly greater than zero. Therefore, the inner circle does not roll on its line. When the point is in the 6 o'clock position, its speed is equal to R - r which shows that the wheel is skidding or slipping in the +x direction. We can also consider the case in which the inner circle rolls on its line and the outer circle is along for the ride. In this case, we have a prolate cycloid given by: x = r * t - R * sin(t) y = r - R * cos(t) Again: u = r - R * cos(t) v = R * sin(t) In this case, the horizontal component of the velocity is zero whenever r - R * cos(t) = 0. That happens when cos(t) = r / R. Now, consider a right triangle with leg a = r and hypotenuse c = R. Then the length of the other side, b = √(R2 - r2) so that sin(t) = √(R2 - r2) / R. But, that implies that sin(t) =/= 0 so that the vertical component of the velocity is not zero at the same time as the horizontal component. Therefore, the outer circle (or wheel) never has a point in stationary contact with its line. It is always skidding or slipping on its surface. The prolate case can also be examined by first setting the y-component of the velocity equal to zero. That happens whenever the point is in either the 6 o'clock or 12 o'clock position. In this case, we are only interested in the case in which the point is at the bottom which happens whenever t = 2 * π * k, for k = 0, 1, 2, ... In that position, the horizontal component of the velocity, u = r - R which shows that the large wheel is slipping backward --- opposite the direction of motion of the center point. As I said at the outset, this demonstration doesn't show anything beyond what was already shown by numerous graphical and mathematical methods. It merely serves to illustrate the point that using cycloids results in the same conclusion as other methods. Darrell
  33. 1 point
    not true. She provided a good expression of what I was thinking about (ugh!) government, politics and the state. On scientific and mathematical issues she was a great Hollywood script writer.
  34. 1 point
    The best visual depiction of the different Vt's of inner circles. For the visuo-spatial experts who doubted that.
  35. 1 point
    You are doubtless correct about it being intentional. The precious idiots are helping spread Q and his message, it is working exactly as you describe. They can't help themselves, so, by their stupidity and lack of self control, they help us. Regarding "Fake News Media is Fake, Fake, Fake!" That is commentary from the hosting site https://qmap.pub in the form of their own invented post "title" it is not part of Q's post #2639. Q has several authors. There are distinct voices, for sure. "Fake, fake, fake" and "fight, fight, fight" are common. "These people are sick," "These people are stupid." also common. Not all of them are wordsmiths. Fake News Media is Fake, Fake, Fake! 2639 Q!!mG7VJxZNCI21 Dec 2018 - 8:42:54 AM FAKE NEWS.jpeg Why do people trust the FAKE NEWS media? Anons can play this game all day long. Compare & Contrast. FAKE! FAKE! FAKE! Q
  36. 1 point
    DNA doesn't much value intelligence. Language seems to be almost as important as the opposable thumb. We may be the smartest beings of our galaxy, for several reasons. But there may be trillions of galaxies. Etc. --Brant
  37. 1 point
    Ditto. Mechanical visualization/reasoning ability is not as common as one might think. And it's also complex -- someone who seems to easily grasp one scenario might suddenly have great difficulty with just a slight new twist to it. It's fun to explore these cognitive differences. J
  38. 1 point
    Do your children bring your posts to school for "show and tell?" I'm sure they are mighty proud of strong, brave Internet Dad.
  39. 1 point
    btw - On Michael Flynn: And so it goes... Michael
  40. 1 point
    Sure, soon as Jon learns to stfu.
  41. 1 point
    It's not about "boisterous" or "snowflakes", it's not about "strong" or "weak". That dichotomy is barbarism. There will always be a portion of society that will try to use primitive tactics and actions to try to gain advantage over others. It's your forum, you choose to allow or not allow whatever behavior. Civility exists, but for it to exist there has to be rules and those rules enforced, otherwise the barbaric will have their way. The rational and moral will be impacted by the "strong" and those who seek superiority over others. Perhaps the rational and moral will seek out "safe spaces"---as what it is currently being called here on OL---if the behavior of others is primitive and aggressive. But like you've said before, you pay the bills here on OL. I'm just one of those long-term members.
  42. 1 point
  43. 1 point
    Hi Jon, Perhaps I was too hasty since I haven't been reading all the posts on OL, but I just noticed that some people are quick to engage in name calling. I'm not an absolutist when it comes to being polite. If someone is being flagrantly rude and disparaging, I'll sometimes get down in the gutter and engage in a little tit-for-tat. However, I generally dislike being impolite just because someone else doesn't seem to understand something, frustration notwithstanding. Cheers, Darrell
  44. 1 point
    Hi Tony, After reading MSK's post from Nov. 22nd --- I'll catch up eventually --- I realized that there are two ways to resolve the paradox. Perhaps the second way is easier for you. Let R, W, and V be the radius, angular velocity and tangential velocity of the big wheel. Then V = RW. Define r, w, and v similarly for the small wheel so that v = rw. Then, if R > r either V > v or w > W. Either the tangential velocity of the big wheel is larger or the angular velocity of the small wheel is larger. So, another way of resolving the paradox is to say that the wheels are actually separate wheels that turn at different rates. If that is easier for you to visualize, that works too. Darrell
  45. 1 point
    The paradox can be illustrated in two ways: 1. The larger circle is on a “track”/surface and the smaller circle is dependent upon the larger. 2. The smaller circle is on a “track”/surface and the larger circle is dependent upon the smaller. Solve either 1 or 2, and solving the other is trivial. Taking away both “tracks” destroys the paradox. Assuming both “tracks”/surfaces exist simultaneously muddles it. All of Jonathan’s videos and drawings show two “tracks”/surfaces simultaneously. That is the con in Jonathan’s con art. That’s the crutch, without which Jonathan and you are helpless.
  46. 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.
  47. 1 point
    Same here! Tony, tell us about this one...
  48. 1 point
    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?
  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
    http://en.wikipedia....ical_appearance Reacher is a giant, standing at 6' 5" tall (1.96m) with a 50-inch chest, and weighing between 210 and 250 pounds (100–115 kg). He has ice-blue eyes and dirty blond hair. He has very little body fat, and his muscular physique is completely natural (he reveals in Persuader, he has never been an exercise enthusiast.) He is exceptionally strong but is not a good runner.[3] Reacher is strong enough to break a man's neck with one hand (Bad Luck and Trouble) and kill a villain with a single punch to the head (61 Hours) or chest (Worth Dying For). In a fight against a 7 foot, 400 lb steroid-using thug (Persuader), Reacher was able to lift his opponent into the air and drop him on his head. So his description is basically Daniel Craig (5’ 11”) plus half a foot. If they casted Craig, no one would be complaining. But Tom Cruise (5’ 7”) just can’t make it to the top shelf. Terrific actor, but no Reacher, however much he stretches and gets up on his tippee toes. http://www.filmbug.com/db/258/height http://www.filmbug.c...b/262655/height