Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/17/2020 in Blog Comments

  1. 1 point
    I started to blush until I realized you didn't call me a genius. Ah, well. One gathers what one can and then one tries further. --Brant if you (I?) only knew the power of my dark side
  2. 1 point
    I see. Jon unwittingly reveals his dominant motive for visiting OL. It is not to learn or discuss, but to hurl crap and insults at other people he hates and know he is a "snake." He is so disappointed that I won't join him in his hurling crap and insults at BaalChatzaf, who may not even read them. Foul-mouthed Jon's pseudo-self-esteem remains in need of a big boost. He'd have a much better chance of a boost by begging Jonathan, MSK, or Ellen. 😄
  3. 1 point
    Bob was exhibiting signs of Alzheimer's along with his characteristic Aspie obliviousness. I started to wonder toward the end of last year if he'd died, and I took to periodically checking his User Profile to see if he'd signed in. He did sign in on Thanksgiving Day, November 28, and then again on February 6. Ellen
  4. 1 point
    Elon Musk's Favorite Riddle I have no desire to sling arrows at BaalChatzaf. He hasn't posted here in 4 months. He is getting up there in years. Give him a break.
  5. 1 point
    Did you read that, Billy? Cuddlemuffin is free to post more recipes for tasty steamed octopus. Hooray!
  6. 1 point
    I have been reading Loserthink by Scott Adams. He deals with the very topic under discussion here and spells out the scam I have always sensed and tried to describe as best I could. Scott did a much better job. The gist is that in deciding on whether manmade CO2 causes climate change, we not only get information second hand--after all, very few people make the measurements themselves, therefore most people rely on and pass on what someone says, not what they themselves experienced--we only get to see successes, not failures. And that is very similar to a popular "narrowing down" stock scam. This leads to the blind certainty of the gloom-and-doomers. Here are Scott's words from the book (where he also describes the scam). This is why I believe Brad and William run from answering Jonathan's questions. They are in the sweet spot of the scam targets and that, allied to the social proof and peer pressure of those they read and hang out with who agree with them, makes them certain. They don't need to answer simple questions about climate science and the scientific method and couldn't if they tried--unless they said we need to learn a lot more before we can be certain of any large-scale predictions. And that includes whether man-produced CO2 causes major climate change. Granted, the climate change computer models always fail eventually, at least they have up to now, so that might make it seem like the stocks scam isn't relevant. But short term, scientists stake their reputations on these models and everyone on the manmade climate change side touts how correct they are. And they never say, "Oops," when their climate models blow up. So the public perception is that these models are successful. Sometimes they need to be "refined," but this is tweaking success, not fixing failure. That's the perception. The reality is pure failure. Michael
  7. 1 point
    No, fabricator. I didn't fall for an "illusion" and said nothing about being being dazzled. I dared the conceptually and mechanically inept Jonathan to explain why what happens does happen. He failed. You and Brant also didn't explain why or even feel it was needed. I'm not surprised. None of you saw the significance of the center of the moving coin. Déjà vu. Analysis and Solution Why does the moving coin make two rotations? From start to end the center of the moving coin travels a circular path. The radius of that path is twice either coin's radius. Hence, the circumference of the path is twice either coin's circumference. How much the moving coin rotates around its own center en route, even if none, or in what direction -- clockwise, counterclockwise, or some of both -- has no effect on the length of the path. That the coin rotates twice per the description on Wikipedia makes a distraction.