Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/18/2019 in Posts

  1. 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
  2. 2 points
    Not some maintenance guy at a theme park, folks, the Director of their music division.
  3. 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.
  4. 2 points
    Billy has closed further comments on his "Placeholder for GW/CC 'How I got here’” climate doom thread, and just when I thought that he might finally be interested in actual discussion. So, I’m starting this thread to answer some of the responses that he gave in his last post — and thanks, Billy, for those responses, instead of your typical non-responsiveness. Billy replied to me: My understanding is that Tyndall's testing of his hypotheses were well-defined and carefully controlled, and his results were and are repeatable. I’ve been asking you to provide the same in regard to hypotheses of man-made climate change. Do you understand that Tyndall’s work does not answer my questions? Billy: You reap what you sow, Billy. Heh. Don’t like being accused and psychoanalyzed? Hmmm. Maybe consider not doing it to others. Let’s have a conversation. I’ve been asking for one for years. I’ve been asking the same questions, and you’ve been ignoring them, dodging them, and serving “tasty steamed octopus” (in other words, posting everything but answers to my questions while acting as if you’re answering the questions). I’ve also asked if you have a problem with my requests for you to show me the science, and, if so, to explain why you think that my questions are invalid, improper, not applicable, or whatever. No response. No explanation. Instead of having a discussion, you decide to ignore questions, and then devise ways of testing what I know about Tyndall or Weart, or whomever else. You don’t need to know how much I know. Science isn’t about establishing authority. He who knows the most doesn’t become right just by having the most knowledge. All that matters is repeatable results of successfully tested predictions of hypotheses. That’s what I’ve been asking you -- over and over and over again -- to provide. That’s the question that I’ve been asking you to provide the answers to. Show me the science. I’ve displayed the patience of a saint. I’ve asked countless times in regard to the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change: "Show me the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record." My belief and understanding is that you have not answered my questions. Nor did Brad when he was here, nor the second meatball. I’m not interested in suspecting what will happen in regard to "predictions of global warming to come.” Predictions are not the end of science. For the billionth fucking time, I’m interested in the predictions of the past having come true in reality after having been precisely defined. I'm interested in climatology following the requirements of the scientific method. As I’ve asked ad nauseam: "I'm asking to see 'the science' which puts the hypothesis to the test, and succeeds reliably and repeatedly. I'm asking for open access to all of the information. What was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what were the start and finish dates of the experiment, what are the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record?” "How long of a time period must we observe temperatures rising, without leveling off or falling, in order to conclude not only that temperatures are indeed rising enough so as to be considered climactic change, but also primarily caused by human activities? Which models/experiments have identified this timeframe prior to the models' predictions being made, and prior to reality then being observed? Where may I find the details of these types of ground rules? We already know that some scientists are asserting that a 12 to 15 year "pause/hiatus," or even a 15 to 18 year one, is not sufficient to falsify their favorite models. With such assertions, determining exactly when the ground rules were established becomes very important. Without these details, it can seem that people are just making it up as they go along." "What are the specific conditions of falsifiability? What results in reality would invalidate the hypothesis? And why? "Which single model is the settled science model? I've seen a range of models with a range of predictions. Some have fallen by the wayside over the decades, and we don't hear about them anymore, but, anyway, which of the differing and competing current models settled it once and for all, and what date was it officially determined by the consensus scientists that that single model nailed it?" It isn’t a card game. Science isn’t about seeing the other guys' cards. It’s about identifying reality via a specific process. You seem to want to believe that I have beliefs that you need to counter. I don’t. I’m asking to see the science. No other method will work. I don’t accept substitutes, and all you’ve been focusing on is substitutes. Focus on the science. Focus on answering my questions rather than trying to guess my beliefs so that you can formulate a strategy to counter them. I haven’t read it. I’ve come across references to it, and quotes from it. I’m neither excited about reading it, nor opposed. Does it answer my questions? If so, please just cut to the chase and say so. Cite the relevant passages. There’s Billy doing exactly what he complains about when the Others™ do it right back to him. Anyway, to answer your question, no, your recommendation isn’t the kiss of death. Why are you so passionate about getting me to read it? Does it address the questions that I’ve been asking for years? If not, why would I find it worth reading? Are you hoping that, since it convinced you, it will do the same for me, and make me forget all about the questions that I’ve asked that you can’t answer? You poor darling. Victims who can’t take what they dish out are the most victimized of all victims. It's do damned unfair that people treat you almost as poorly as you treat them. Yes, please do come back if you learn that new material, especially if it answers my questions. We really don't need any more of your new material that doesn't answer the questions, or doesn't explain why you won't answer the questions. J
  5. 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.
  6. 2 points
    Get Woke, Go Broke - Selling Authoritarianism This could also be called "The Virtue of Slavery." Different companies have flirted with selling social justice because they believe the millennial demographic is mostly made up of social justice warriors. Sjw's are the loudest, but not the majority. And some major corporations are learning this the hard way. Remember those gawdawful Gillette ads about how men were nasty to women, but could "do better"? How does an eight billion dollar loss sound? Gillette is 'shifting the spotlight from social issues' after series of woke ads — and losses Gillette ‘Shifting Spotlight from Social Issues’ After Anti-Masculinity Ad Disaster Gillette learned one cannot guilt customers into buying razor blades. That's a mistake for newbies, not companies the size of Gillette. But here we are. The real problem is not selling a product with an underdog story, not even a social class underdog story, i.e., social justice story, so long as the customer feels empowered, not demeaned. Ads that do this tend to work. The problem comes from selling authoritarianism. Power in the message must go to the individual, not to the tribe. Individuals buy retail products. Tribes rarely do. When power goes to the tribe in an ad message, that's propaganda. That's selling authoritarianism. And propaganda doesn't sell razor blades. This is pretty simple, but the dorks in some major companies seem to have difficulty understanding it. I could mention not using their own customers as the villains in the ad stories, too, but one thing at a time. These people need one to go sloooooooooooww... This problem has become so pervasive these days, there is now a popular saying: Get woke, go broke. It's almost like the free market is telling them: Social justice authoritarianism is poison and if you sell it, you deserve to lose your money. But a corrective is happening and another popular saying illustrates it well: Money talks, bullshit walks. Michael
  7. 2 points
  8. 1 point
    23 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: Sorry, I took you for meaning the dumb ones’ failures are ignored, but you surely meant the fails, period, are ignored. Do have experience with cats? Allowed outdoors? You’ve watched them while they are outdoors? In my experience the intelligence depicted in the video just scratches the surface of cats’ abilities. Almost my whole life I've lived with cats. Only when the last one died, 18 years old, we've decided not to take another cat, as that one would probably survive us, and that is an unbearable idea to us, as we've no idea what would become of it then. And yes, they can be clever. When it suits them.
  9. 1 point
    Here's a recent radio minterview with Kinzer to get a better gist of the book. It not only deals with drugs and stress, it also deals with James Bond-level poisoning and other goodies. (Gottlieb was like Q, the gadget guy, in Bond stories. Except Gottlieb was real and deadly.) There is a fact Kinzer said in this interview that is not in the book. The same medical examiner who worked on the Epstein "suicided" case also worked on the Frank Olson case (an MK-Ultra insider who was "suicided" out a tenth-floor hotel window in the 1950's). That would be Dr. Michael Baden of JFK assassination (and other celebrity deaths) fame. I tried to corroborate this with a quick search online, but couldn't. Still, I believe Baden was involved in the Olson case in some manner, either back then or more recently when Olson's remains were exhumed. Michael
  10. 1 point
    Ran across this article today on The Atlantic, A Famous Argument Against Free Will Has Been Debunked For decades, a landmark brain study fed speculation about whether we control our own actions. It seems to have made a classic mistake. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will-bereitschaftspotential/597736/ The death of free will began with thousands of finger taps. In 1964, two German scientists monitored the electrical activity of a dozen people’s brains. Each day for several months, volunteers came into the scientists’ lab at the University of Freiburg to get wires fixed to their scalp from a showerhead-like contraption overhead. The participants sat in a chair, tucked neatly in a metal tollbooth, with only one task: to flex a finger on their right hand at whatever irregular intervals pleased them, over and over, up to 500 times a visit. The purpose of this experiment was to search for signals in the participants’ brains that preceded each finger tap. At the time, researchers knew how to measure brain activity that occurred in response to events out in the world—when a person hears a song, for instance, or looks at a photograph—but no one had figured out how to isolate the signs of someone’s brain actually initiating an action. [...] __________________ TLDR, it seems the analysis of the original experiment was incorrect, and that is what the article means what was debunked. An interesting read, and encouraging for free-will and volitionists.
  11. 1 point
    Jon, I went to the Politico article. Here are the sources naming Israel as the dastardly culprit targeting Trump. First, there's the US government. The first paragraph of the Politico article actually says that. See here: "The U.S. government concluded within the past two years that Israel was most likely behind the placement of cellphone surveillance devices that were found near the White House and other sensitive locations around Washington..." That's a direct quote. So who is "the US government" in this case? Easy-peasy: "Three former senior U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter." That's also a direct quote from the same first paragraph. Man, am I glad we got that settled. Now we can relax and believe every goddam thing in the article. (btw - I"m not saying Israel did or didn't do anything. I'm just saying that article is garbage.) Michael
  12. 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
  13. 1 point
    I'm not sure John Bolton ever understood his true role in this administration. He was always leverage for negotiating, never consideration for contracts. More leverage is easy for President Trump to find these days... Michael
  14. 1 point
    Gitmo? From the Baltimore Sun -- which was the source of the Zerohedge article: The Zerohedge article had a 'this article will be updated' tag at the bottom. As of this moment, the story is not updated ...
  15. 1 point
  16. 1 point
    'Chiseltown' is completed. It is an intensely personal story, although it has nothing to do with me personally, as odd as that may sound. It's about a fictional filmmaker and a movie, from the first phone call to the last. That's how movies are made. I suppose it's not so different in other walks of life. Somebody calls, you do something, there's another phone call to find out if they liked whatever it was that you did. A producer calls, a movie is made, and then there's another phone call from a preview screening to report average Jane and John Doe audience response, in Fresno traditionally. Audience cards don't matter. What matters is whether the movie made them laugh and gasp and cry real tears, because movies should do that. Along the way, 'Chiseltown' presents a detailed, accessible education in filmmaking, how a script is written and funded and translated into actors and location shoots and sound stages with forced perspective to create a convincing night exterior scene, or an apartment, or a repair shop. Bruno Heckmeier is making a low-budget movie. There are severe obstacles to overcome. He has an unusual home life. There's an enormous amount of comedy for light entertainment purposes. Some of the story is serious literature. Some is slightly adult. I found that I cared very deeply about the 7 or 8 principal players in this story. There are many more bit players, and if it seems unusual to have so many characters, please consider that the movie Bruno makes involves a production company of fifty skilled professionals, stunt men, two very capable stars, and an unusual supporting cast. It's a very short schedule, six weeks to organize it, six weeks to shoot everything, and six weeks of post production. Trust me, that's working at lightning speed. It's a personal story in two respects. I had to write the movie for Bruno to make. And I had to live in Bruno's shoes (and those of all the other characters) with honesty, humor, drama, and a deep understanding of the men and women who call themselves "show people," no matter what their specialty or contribution to a motion picture is. Camera grip, driver, bookkeeper, electrician, set decorator, or seamstress -- they are people who sacrifice much to work a few weeks on a movie, a collaborative art that cannot be created without them. I've done many "below the line" production jobs for an hourly wage, in addition to "above the line" writing, producing, and directing. You have to take my word for it. Directing is a high privilege. It's done by lots of different men and women. 'Chiseltown' is directed by a talented, goofy, warmhearted, intelligent middle aged guy who got stuck on Poverty Row doing low-budget movies, while others did studio pictures with an average budget of $75 million. Bruno has to conceive and execute a feature film on 1/5 as much money, and he wants it to succeed, not only at the box office, but critically as well. Being an "indie" confers a great deal of freedom. No studio moguls, Teamsters, or IATSE work rules. The whole of Los Angeles as a locale, in a "period" setting that's fun to shoot. I always experience emotional awe when I've finished a story. 'Chiseltown' is in a class of its own, among all the stories I've written, among all the fictional characters that I loved and still love, of course. The story of making a movie is a personal confession of my lifelong passion. 'Chiseltown' is a movie I didn't get to make, and it's deeply gratifying to have directed its fictional creation. Many of the characters are based on people who I knew and worked with and loved and respected. Please buy a copy ($5 at Lulu.com) and review it. Thanks. http://www.lulu.com/shop/wolf-devoon/chiseltown/paperback/product-24236289.html
  17. 1 point
    The upside to suspending disbelief just long enough to seriously ponder and explore the things Michael points out is that you might come to understand big truths years before most everyone else. You will have to be brave because you may end up concluding that just about everything you know about the world you were born into is terribly, tragically, false. I went through it in 2015-16 and it was quite unsettling.
  18. 1 point
    “Next Top Model scout Jean-Luc Brunel flew poor 12-year-old triplets in from France as a BIRTHDAY PRESENT for Jeffrey Epstein to abuse, unsealed documents claim” ”He was so excited about the entire event, replayed over and over again over the next course of weeks how cute they were and how you could tell they were really young,' she said.“ +10 The fresh allegations were made by Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who claims she was recruited to be a 'sex slave' by the millionaire financier and his girlfriend Ghislane Maxwell when she was 15 in 1999. Giuffre, 35, is seen holding a photo of her 16-year-old self https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7371693/Jean-Luc-Brunel-gave-Jeffrey-Epstein-three-poor-12-year-old-triplets-France-birthday-present.html
  19. 1 point
    “But I’m just a pederast!” Good luck with that in the showers. 😆😆 Imagine if 9th looked first before declaring his comically ignorant shit.... Millionaire and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was reportedly provided with underage girls ages 12 and up through a French modeling agency, new reports reveal.One of Epstein's partners, Jean-Luc Bruno, was suspected of providing the pedophile with minors for the purpose of sexually assaulting them ... he managed to collect approximately 1000 teenage girls for Epstein.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.jpost.com/Breaking-News/French-modeling-agency-provided-Jeffrey-Epstein-with-underage-girls-report-599032/amp They should have put two and two together, says 9th. Wow, what a fucking monster you are. Probably a fat, sweaty, we know ignorant already, monster. You guys usually hide better than this. Thanks for that.
  20. 1 point
    How did Ayn Rand impart logical and mathematical precision to her words? I was thinking of her frequent use of the Latin term *qua*. Any ideas about her sentence and paragraph progressions leading to clarity? Peter Notes. From Merriam-Webster. qua preposition \ ˈkwä also ˈkwā \ Definition of qua: in the capacity or character of : as discussing the story qua story. Did You Know? Which way? Who? No, we're not paraphrasing lines from the old Abbott and Costello routine "Who's on First?" We're referring to the etymology of qua, a term that comes to us from Latin. It can be translated as "which way" or "as," and it is a derivative of the Latin qui, meaning "who." Qua has been serving English in the capacity of a preposition since the 17th century. It's a learned but handy little word that led one 20th-century usage writer to comment: "Qua is sometimes thought affected or pretentious, but it does convey meaning economically." First Known Use of qua? 1647, in the meaning defined above. History and Etymology for qua. Latin, which way, as, from ablative singular feminine of qui who — more at WHO.
  21. 1 point
    P, I agree with this. It reminds me of anonymous Internet trolls who are really nasty to people, but when faced in reality one-on-one, are nice or cower. The underlying principle is that harming or killing humans at a distance (whether physical or psychological) is tempting and much easier than face-to-face. It's one of the reasons enemies need to be dehumanized in war. Convincing people to kill a thing is a lot more effective than convincing them to kill humans like themselves. Both drones and AI provide such distance. Anonymity provides even more. On a sticking point, I don't like applying the concept of suicide to a machine. Calling a delivery system for a bomb a "suicide drone" is the conceptual equivalent of calling a bomb (which is technically a machine) a "suicide bomb" simply because it self-destructs when it blows up. That's a lot different than human beings blowing themselves up with bombs in order to kill others. Anyone who would consider a human being as nothing more than a delivery system for bombs does not share my love of human beings. Michael
  22. 1 point
    Hi. Do you want to leap straight into "wisdom" - by by-passing "knowledge"? That's the lazy way many take. One may join a religion, a sorta "wisdom" will be given to one without effort. But then how does one know it IS "wisdom"? By what and by whose, standards? How can it be tested and validated? There, one is blindly accepting on faith, revelation, imitating previous' thoughts and beliefs of others. Very close by, are the irreligious beliefs many pick up from general "society", the "collective" who - numerically - MUST know better ... surely? Or else, the hard and only worthwhile path: there is the individual's knowledge of reality. Which you have to undertake all alone by yourself through direct contact - perceptions, building into ever deepening-broadening concepts (i.e. reasoning). It may be best not at first trying to grasp Ayn Rand, in your casual reading of her "some good points"/ "many bad points" - (by whose, or by what, standards?) - see if you are able to identify, evaluate and encapsulate all that there is in existence, including yourself and "man". Without an objective method of cognition founded on objective reality, few if any will succeed. Could be at some point you'll begin to appreciate O'ism, but only if reality/existence matters to you above esoteric wisdom. Perhaps -- I don't know, not being wise enough - "wisdom" is the consequence, when a mind has integrated a total sum of the universe. Wisdom, as such, is not promised or explicitly professed, in Objectivism. Non-contradictory knowledge is, with effort.
  23. 1 point
    Here's how it works. 1. Lots of leaks were happening. 2. Goofy stories about Trump suddenly appeared in the fakes news media. 3. Trump suddenly fired an insider. 4. Less leaks were immediately discernible in headline feeds. 5. The fake news media now says the insider was fired because she said Tiffany was fat (and so on). Everybody believes the insider was fired because she said Tiffany was fat (and so on). Except everybody doesn't believe it... They think the fake news media puts out fake news. Michael
  24. 1 point
    Here is the Alice in Wonderland technique video that Amazing Polly mentioned in her video above. Also, for anyone who wants to go deeper, here is the link at the National Security Archive on interrogation techniques. You can get the PDF version to several manuals there. These manuals are what the US government has used and, for the most part, is probably still using in updated materials with even more creepy stuff added due to advances in neuroscience and modern psychology. And the Wikipedia page for good measure: U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals. Michael
  25. 1 point
    It will be shown they knew all about their rapist employee, for many, many years. “Paz de la Huerta is adding The Walt Disney Company, its CEO Bob Iger and ex-chairman Michael Eisner to the actress’ sexual assault lawsuit against disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/entertainment/paz-de-la-huerta-disney-bob-iger-michael-eisner-harvey-weinstein.amp
  26. 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
  27. 1 point
    It is interesting to discover that not buying into the climate doom narrative, and not wanting to punish the rich, are examples of craziness. Heh. What is wrong with you? We're going to stick it to those who have more than we do, and you're not going to support us and help us take what we want? You must be mentally ill!
  28. 1 point
    "Consistent application of principles" is 1) reductionism to find them then 2) constructionism to apply them. But "principles" is a plural and principles can collide with each other. Enter, rigorous use of critical thinking. Shall we apply morality and blow up the world or is it more moral not to blow up the world and apply the other in safer times? The primary job of an American President is the physical protection of the United States and its citizens. Since Rand wasn't President she was free to get off on the morality, but not to prescribe and apply policy. Kennedy was free in the context of his duties to go to the ballet. Rand stayed clean and Kennedy got dirty. Politics is a very dirty business. Much dirtier today then way back then. --Brant Trump is dirty
  29. 1 point
  30. 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
  31. 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.
  32. 1 point
    Insecurities? Psychobabble framing. I'll tell you what my intent in this discussion was: to show that your arguments for implying tampering with the picture were false. Reread our discussion on that matter. You'll see that I quite neutrally, without any personal remark, told you why your argument was fallacious. You return with new arguments, which I also show to be false. Then you start with personal remarks: Observe the condescending tone, and the start of psychologizing: I would have no experience in such matters. How do you know? Because I disagree with you? Further I'm a "believer" who "cannot think outside the box", and therefore explaining it to me will probably be "wasted effort". Don't you see that you're now exactly doing what you are reproaching me for? Not that it bothers me, but your double standard does. Yes, and you are a great shutter down of discussions. When I wrote (about the beard of the statue): "Curious, I just see a beard, an ear and hair on top. No, it's not very clear, but that is due to the fact that the image of the white statue is rather bleached out by overexposure, and it isn't very sharp anyway. That seems to me to be a more likely explanation of what you see, than the notion that some evil conspirator has painted an extra beard on the statue or has removed some embarrassing details of the statue", your reply is: Escalating again, after a quite normal remark of mine. Probably because you think with your all-knowing psychologizing mind that this must be what I'm really thinking. Well, even if that were the case, I didn't say that, and it is nowhere implied in what I really said. Talk about thin-skinned. You seem to be describing yourself. Getting power, bullying, silencing dissenters, you must have a big social standing fear.
  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
    which puzzle is that?
  35. 1 point
    As I'd said in the post Bob replied to. How many repetitions will be needed before he pays attention? Ellen
  36. 1 point
    The "South Pole solution" is perfectly in accordance with the original problem, nobody moved the goal posts. Most people see only the first solution, the North Pole solution, but the South Pole solutions are just as good, only a bit less obvious.
  37. 1 point
    ALL northbound travel is along a line of longitude. Any other path or direction is NOT north or south. Since the last leg of this three part journey is north along a line of longitude different from the first leg the end point must lie on the intersection of the two lines of longitude, hence it is a pole. Given the conditions of the problem it is the north pole.
  38. 1 point
    False. That does not logically follow, and we've shown it to be false with examples. Bob, what you need to do is to slow down, actually read and comprehend what we've written and illustrated, and carefully consider what we've said. Our presentations of solutions near the south pole comply with the conditions of the exercise. J
  39. 1 point
    North mean North a line of longitude. Longitudes all intersect at exactly two points. The geographic north pole and the geographic south pole. Walking north-west is NOT walking north.
  40. 1 point
    How much funding? Did the funding influence the protestors? How much required action do the protestors need to take according to the funding? Does Soros have a direct hand in their actions? How much contact does he have with their organization? How much influence does he have just because there is some amount of funding? Did the particular recent protest have any involvement by Soros directly? If so, how much? Did the funding amount contribute to the elevator protest event? If so, how?
  41. 1 point
    I am glad you posted that. I was going to post Palmer's lecture. it is excellent and it deals quite well the difficulties in making decent models of climate. His discourse on the Navier Stokes equation which he likens to an array or Russian dolls (of decreasing scale) is first rate. The interesting and ironic thing is that the climate alarmists might be right (although they have not proven themselves so). I think good sense should prevail and we should really get busy transitioning our power producing technology away from those means which produce a CO2 overload. While I do not believe we we turn in Venus in the next century, the longer we put the task off the harder it will be to avoid climatic effects from CO2, CH4 and increased water vapor production. I think a steady business like program to develop non-combustion means of generating electricity will not only improve technology over all, but may be beneficial in terms of avoiding climatic extremities. In conjunction with such a technology progression I think stopping the Boys from Brazil from leveling the Amazon Rain Forrest and planting many many trees would be good for the planet.
  42. 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.
  43. 1 point
    I have no idea who started the notion that global warming is a hoax. Tyndall showed that CO2 retards the out-radiation in the IR bands back in 1880. So we get a blanket effect. CO2 does not generate heat, it slows down the rate at which heat is radiated back into space a bit. Without CO2 in the atmosphere not only would plants not grow or exist but the equilibrium temperature at the Earth's surface would be -15 deg C. In short Earth would be frozen and lifeless on land and the only place where life could exist is in the deep oceans next to the geothermal vents.
  44. 1 point
    Earlier today, I saw some comments on Michelle Marder Kamhi's blog that were posted by a rather ill-tempered feller named Jonathan Smith. Any relation to our semi-anonymous chum? (I mean "chum" in the sense pertaining to fishing bait.) REB
  45. 1 point
  46. 1 point
    Yeah, that Trump, he's a regular Barry Goldwater, all right - in one major respect: he's going down to a landslide defeat in November. We can only hope that there's another Reagan that emerges during the campaign who will one day step up to the plate and truly restore America's greatness and, more importantly, her liberty. REB
  47. 1 point
    It doesn't matter whom the Republicans nominate this year. There's no one who can or will stand up to Hillary. Once the candidates get to the fall televised debates, and she unleashes the full force of her horrid, abrasive, righteousness behind the morality of altruism - welfare statism, politically correct statism, etc. - the GOP candidate will fall all over himself to prove that he isn't as cruel and heartless as Evita's smear attacks paint him as being. All of his planned attacks on her character and record will boomerang, as she "proves" how much she wants to do to unite an already great country, and how "greatness" without unity (and loads of redistribution and forced acceptance of the differences of others) can never bring us together or keep us great. And then, in November, the GOP would-be POTUS will fall into the electoral ditch, dazed and bleeding from a landslide defeat, wondering what happened to his hopes to beat this lying, corrupt, malevolent witch in the race for the White House. And then the rest of us will have to put up with 4-8 years of her. And no, she isn't just a little worse than Bill. She's a lot worse. And she will have a Democratic Congress to work with. And the golden opportunity to nominate 2-3-4 Supreme Court justices, ensuring liberal-leaning decisions for the next generation. Our only hope, if there is one, is that Trump's bull-in-the-china-shop machinations will have succeeded, one way or another, in destroying the Republican Party, so that a new, better, more individual liberty oriented party can emerge that will push for more economic freedom, civil liberties, and non-interventionistic foreign policy. And no, there is no "transition" candidate who can get us there, only some who might have slowed the progress toward the cliff, while others in unguarded moments give indications that they would be little different from the turkey presently in the White House. REB
  48. 1 point
    Robert, It's a quip. Read into it whatever you want, but it's a quip. Banter. Playful exaggeration of my support of Trump. How it is you didn't get this? Does the prospect of having your man lose hurt that much? Michael
  49. 1 point
    I protest against thread drift here, trivialities like wealth distribution are distractions from the crucial topics of weddings and ill puppies and the heartwarming benevolence of Floridians, none of them socialists, it is well known that there are no socialists in Florida.
  50. 0 points
    In Iran, Trump shoots their space launches right before ignition and Tweet-taunts them in public for all to see. Won't be long there. In U.K., if the Queen is as checkmated as I suspect and consequently refuses to approve the traitor's recent BREXIT-prevention law, then they will pull themselves away from the Fourth Reich this year. In France, approximately two people approve of Macron and the Yellow Vests have not let up for about a year now. Traitor Macron will be their last puppet in France. Somewhere in Germany Hitler's daughter is literally in bed shaking right now, just like how Daddy went out. Won't be long.