Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/15/2018 in Posts

  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
    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.
  6. 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.
  7. 2 points
    Sunny Lohmann hosts a podcast featuring Ed Powell and Ed Mazlish: youtube.com/watch?v=995Riq8JdUo
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 2 points
  11. 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.
  12. 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/
  13. 1 point
    German League Of Girls https://spartacus-educational.com/2WWgirls.htm In 1930 the Bund Deutscher Mädel (German League of Girls) was formed as the female branch of the Hitler Youthmovement. It was set up under the direction of Hitler Youth leader, Baldur von Schirach. There were two general age groups: the Jungmädel, from ten to fourteen years of age, and older girls from fifteen to twenty-one years of age. All girls in the BDM were constantly reminded that the great task of their schooling was to prepare them to be "carriers of the... Nazi world view". (1) ... Members of the BDM later recalled that they welcomed the extra power they had over their parents: "As a young person, you were taken seriously. You did things which were important... Your dependence on your parents was reduced, because all the time it was your work for the Hitler Youth that came first, and your parents came second... All the time you were kept busy and interested, and you really believed you had to change the world." (22)
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 1 point
    Bump: C'mon, O-vish necromancers, give it a jolt. J
  17. 1 point
    I am back to not reading Army Ants posts so I don't know what you are satirizing. But thanks anyway, Brant.
  18. 1 point
    Of interest? Posting Guidelines 1. Objectivist Living is a community of people with shared interests, people who are mainly interested in discussing Objectivism from all aspects (including checking basic premises from time to time), the Brandens, fine arts and creating works. Members also present articles and links to their own activities and items they find interesting to share. Thus the tenor is slanted toward understanding, discussion and sometimes education, not preaching or conversion. 2. The practice of good manners is a value sought and encouraged on this forum. Obnoxious and offensive behavior is not welcome. Excessive profanity, trash talk, bigoted remarks and such should be avoided. Should members start insulting each other (flame wars), the site owners will take discreet measures to resolve the issue. If this fails, harsher measures will be used. This should not be seen as a harness on anyone’s intellectual ideas and expression. It is merely a standard for behavior between posters and the bar is fairly high on this forum. 3. As Internet copyright laws are often vague (as of this writing) between what the law states and its application, we request users to use common sense in posting materials that might be copyrighted. If possible and when in doubt, posters should request permission from the owner first. Our intent is not to infringe the law and any material posted that blatantly infringes USA copyright law will be removed. (See Statement of Policy about Plagiary and Copyright Infringement.) 4. The site owners, at their discretion, may delete offensive or improper posts or parts of them, including links. Also, posts and threads may be moved on this forum from one place to another as new sections open up or if a topic is found to be more suited to a different section. Site owners and moderators may also edit posts to correct issues such as font size, typos, spelling errors, broken links, or other minor formatting issues, just as a matter of . . . .
  19. 1 point
    Very interesting. If you hover over someone's name it will tell you what they are viewing. I have blocked Jon but decided to engage him again. I can still read his "theories" by signing out and looking at content or activity. Jon was looking at . . . go see yourself.
  20. 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......
  21. 1 point
    Don’t celebrate the perversion of my country’s system of justice quite yet, pedophile. 😆😆
  22. 1 point
    Altruism was appropriated by the totalitarians for moral justification for their idiological snarmniness and Rand countered with "selfishness" thereby justifying in her own way tyranny if tyranny be a value to whomever. The major flaw in her philosophy is its center in morality instead of politics and it's implicit and explicit morality. She was not wrong about rational self interest but she never recognized the nature of self interest in altruism. Of course, the religionists used altruism the same way the totalitarians did, to justify themselves and to control the subjugated and to subjugate. What has been obscured in this ideological warfare by its sheer bilateralism is actual human nature. The irony of the world of Atlas Shrugged is the sheer human destruction by the men of the mind going on strike is exponentially greater than anything the totalitarians have managed to achieve too date. Now I know I am mixing up my categories, fiction and non-fiction, and Rand declared she was trying to prevent a socialistic America, but Rand too was always mixing up those categories. However, man the individualist was also and always man the provider and man (man and woman, of course) the protector. Man and his (her) family. The irony is the Atlas bad boys were the heroes who let the other bad boys play just to practically illustrate in every way Rand could imagine how bad the bad boys and their policies could be to the USA. Not included, though, were anything like the Nazi and Communist genocides. Just good old Mr. Thompson and naked John Galt on the rack. That was essentially the end of her magnum opus. In her previous novel naked Howard Roark laughed. Roark led straight to Galt. This is why there is no Objectivist movement. The Objectivists are in Galt's Gulch. --Brant
  23. 1 point
    btw - I am no fan of Corsi. I actually read Killing the Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump. This could have been a very good book, but was basically a rehash of stuff from online discussions and videos without much improvement. I know because there is nothing in the book I hadn't seen before back when I read it. And, don't forget, most of the stuff one gets online needs a lot of improvement. This didn't happen in Corsi's book. Whether I like Corsi or not, agree with him or not, consider him to be sloppy and speculative or not, think he does more bad than good for spreading a pro-Trump message or not, even think his QAnon stuff that he promoted up to getting in trouble with Mueller is credible or mostly made up to promote himself and sell his book, that does not excuse what the Mueller people did to him. I get tickled by people who think Corsi was a kook until he said a message they agree with (his apology stuff). Then he becomes a credible source. L O friggin' L. In other words, to these people, Corsi lies until he doesn't. And they'll decide when he doesn't and becomes a sage. To me, Corsi is a kind of scholar for the fringe of the pro-Trump people. And he's not a very good scholar. In fact, at times, he's awful. To get value out of his work, you have to use him in the same manner you use all the major conspiracy folks. He's a blunt instrument to crack open topics that the powerful want buried, but he's not reliable for the details. And all of his conclusions need to be taken as a batch of uneven opinions--some spot on, some wacky and everything in between--that need further research. There's a trick to using these fringe folks correctly. See where the powerful get the most agitated and do the most damage to the fringe folks and right there will be the stuff to look at. (For a real good example, remember when they threw everything they had at a rather mediocre YouTube video maker to cover up the Benghazi mess? Or when they railroaded Dinesh D'Souza over campaign finance? Etc.?) Since Mueller came at Corsi with guns blazing, that's where the rot is. It doesn't matter what Corsi says from that point on. What he was talking about is what they want silenced. In my opinion, starting with Seth Rich... Michael
  24. 1 point
    Ooops, sorry, I just saw your post after what I posted what you see below. But I'll keep it up now for the record as we seek some understanding! ....... Michael - Assuming Jon is not a troll (you'd know better than I), he kind of make my point. Schultz sees far left Dems discrediting his party. Folks can point to the extremists and say "See these crazies! That's the Dems. I rest my case." So Schultz offers an alternative. David Kelley decades ago saw the dogmatic Objectivists discrediting the truly rational, open Objectivists. Folks could point to them and say "See these crazies! That's Objectivism. I rest my case." So David offered an alternative. Someone like Jon makes it easy for our opponents to say "See that crazy! That's Objectivist living. I rest my case." It is sad that after all these decades, these types are still infest Objectivist circles. I always appreciate Objectivist Living though I don't get here much anymore now that I'm doing more public policy. But keep up the example, Michael, of what Objectivism can be and should be!
  25. 1 point
  26. 1 point
    As in, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"? It sounds like Hicks did the equivalent to a quote from Foucault.
  27. 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
  28. 1 point
    I'm just going to restate Aristotle's Wheel Paradox for people who don't seem to understand it because of the mechanical aspects of the problem. Forget about wheels. Instead, consider the function f(x) = 2x defined on the interval [0, 1]. Then, if y = f(x), y is defined on the interval [0, 2]. The function f(x) has an inverse, so that x = f-1(y). Specifically, x = y/2. Now, let yi be any point in [0, 2]. Then there is a corresponding point, xi = yi/2 in [0, 1]. Similarly, let xj be any point in [0, 1]. Then there is a corresponding point, yj = 2xj in [0, 2]. Now, assume that the interval, [0, 2] contains N points. Then the interval [0, 1] also contains at least N points because for every point in [0, 2] there is a corresponding point in [0, 1]. Similarly, if [0, 1] contains M points, then [0, 2] also contains at least M points. Therefore, M must equal N. But, the length of the interval [0, 1] is 1 and the length of the interval [0, 2] is 2, a paradox. I might not quite be doing the paradox justice, but consider the following: If there are N points in the intervals [0, 1] and [0, 2], then the density of points in the first interval is N/1 or just N, while the density of points in the second interval is N/2. So, the density of points in the interval [0, 1] is twice the density of points in the interval [0, 2]. Now, if I double the number of points in the interval [0, 2], then the number of points in the interval [0, 1] must also double and the converse is also true. But, the density of points in the interval [0, 1] is still twice that of the points in [0, 2]. So, if I keep doubling the number of points in the intervals indefinitely, the density of points in the shorter interval will always be twice that of longer interval. And, in the limit of infinitely many points, the limit of the ratio of the densities will equal 2: A (seeming) paradox. I'll return to the mechanical problem later. Darrell
  29. 1 point
    which puzzle is that?
  30. 1 point
    We did say that the circumference of the small circle slides or slips in relationship to the track. The small circle is not doing a true roll on the track. This is not to say that the small wheel slips in relationship to the surrounding figure. Nor is it to say that the small wheel's circumference is extended (your latest incorrect attribution). Ellen
  31. 1 point
    You have it reversed, Merlin. Your cycloid exposition merely restates or reconfirms the paradox - you merely demonstrate that the small wheel indeed accomplishes a traversing of road length in excess of its circumference, a fact already understood, indeed the very fact that the paradox is all about. Your cycloids confirm the problem, they don’t resolve it. The small wheel’s skidding on its road and the precise calculation of that skidding resolves and explains the paradox.
  32. 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
  33. 1 point
    Click on your name at the top left of OL. Go to the "do not see messages place" and type in his name. He Really is an ab-whorent psycho. something is really wrong there.
  34. 1 point
  35. 1 point
    Evidently not. The wheels have the same tooth spacing and the chains are also dimensionally the same. This video proves it...
  36. 1 point
    You got that right. .... That’s the habitual liar, psychologizer, and snooty reality-faker again. The author of Mechanica never said what Jonathan tries to cram in his mouth and mind. The author called the phenomena strange and remarkable, but “should” and “ought” do not appear in his description of it. He knew the smaller circle, when dependent on a larger circle, covered a distance greater than its circumference, and he did not posit two surfaces simultaneously.
  37. 1 point
    Or, in terms of the original statement of the paradox, it is impossible to have: X2 - X1 = R * (T2 - T1) x2 - x1 = r * (t1 - t1) X2 - X1 = x2 - x1 T2 - T1 = t2 - t1 and R > r where X2 - X1 and x2 - x1 are the distances traveled by the big and small wheels, respectively, T2 - T1 and t2 - t1 are the angles (theta) that both wheels rotate (e.g. 2pi radians) and R and r are the radii. That is a mathematical statement of Aristotle's paradox. Darrell
  38. 1 point
    Darrell, That's just cruel. My post is way back on Page 43 of posts. We are now on Page 55. Who's gonna read it due to your mentioning it? So here is the link to my post of Nov. 22nd. Ah... That's better... (btw - I'm glad you liked it. The world was swimming through my brain at the time... I would like to restrict that to the past tense, too, but alas... ) Michael
  39. 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 😊
  40. 1 point
    I’m curious Billy, if you really mean to dispute the reality of the historical activities by the CIA with regard to the media that they themselves named Operation Mockingbird? It seems to be a point over which you like to make some fun - do you think it is funny? You realize that it’s not a conspiracy theory, right? It is funny to believe it didn’t end, but kept going? Is that It? Since the CIA announced they stopped that shit, so then we thereby know they stopped that shit - is that approximately your view? And believing anything else is only for crazies? Do I have it right?
  41. 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.
  42. 1 point
    LOL... Perfect: Michael
  43. 1 point
    Unfortunately, groups that fight racism like in advertising, never seem to succeed, unless it is racism against black people. There can be a commercial with multiple darker skinned humans and not one white and there is no outcry. But we will always hear about how twenty or fifty years ago there were no ads with blacks unless it was in Ebony Magazine and there is truth to that. And don't forget what went on in 1860~ Recently Downton Abbey was cajoled into adding a black actor into the cast even though 1920's England was stratified by class and color. Oddly, the black guy's character understood the situation better than many upper class whites.
  44. 1 point
    Damn, another one.
  45. 1 point
    In the town I grew up in, we used to have a guy stand on the street corner with a bullhorn and shout nonsense. In the past he had been involuntarily committed a few times for other things. Just sayin'.
  46. 1 point
    The cycloids are not relevant for the solution of the paradox, as they are a description of the movement of one point of the wheel in the z-x plane (z = up, x = direction of rail/ledge/road). The paradox is about the interface wheel-rail/ledge/road, however. That is: the points of the wheel and of the rail/ledge/road where they touch each other. The position of these points form a straight line along the rail/ledge/road. When the wheel rotates without slipping on its support, the length of that line is 2πR after one revolution of the wheel with radius R. With the two concentric wheels (radius R and r, r < R) in the paradox, the length of those lines would after one revolution without slipping be equal to 2πR and 2πr respectively. However, the actual length can only have one value, as those wheels are part of a rigid body, so at most only one wheel can rotate without slipping, for example the larger, outer wheel. The smaller inner wheel then has to travel the same distance 2πR over its support. In the same time interval its proper slip-free rotation distance is only 2πr, which is not enough, so it has also to slip over a distance 2π(R – r) to keep up with the outer wheel. Jonathan’s animation shows this clearly. Further, I’m reminded of this joke: https://tinyurl.com/y7hly2al
  47. 1 point
    That is an instantaneous point of tangency. Now you see why Newton and Leibniz had to invent calculus to deal with motion. Poor old Aristotle did not have a chance and even Archimedes who was smart enough to do it, did not invent a form a calculus for dealing with motion. Archimedes developed a theory for static balancing forces but he never invented dynamics. That came much, much later. It is "problems" like the rolling wheel and falling bodies that indicate just how essential differential calculus and differential equations are for the development of physical science. It all comes down to grasping the instantaneous, infinitesimal details of sustained motion. Motion as a unity over time and grasped instantaneously. Quite a trick!
  48. 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
  49. 1 point
    As I said over on the five-minute phobia thread, you are using stolen concepts here. If empirical studies are as unreliable as you say, I have to wonder what you would consider good evidence and why that is better. How you would prove such a claim without empirical evidence is beyond me. In any case I did not say that controlled studies are "the only way" to gather information. In the passage you quoted I expressly mentioned that testimonials (about sentence-completion, for example) could be of some value. Speaking from an amateur literacy in the field, I should think that a good followup would include standardized tests, self-reports and interviews with duly blinded investigators, and maybe other techniques as well. As a matter of fact I've read several of Branden's books. The theoretical part was impressive. The exercises struck me the same way folk-dancing does: harmless fun if you're into it, but not for me.
  50. 1 point
    The Dark Side of the New World Order conspiracy is a concoction from France and Russia, to wit, -The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion- which is a plagiarism of a French work done in 1864. In any case this has produced one of the most vicious and persistent memes ever. Whever your picnic is spoiled by ants or rainstorm, blame the Jews. Whenever the economy goes South, blame the Jews. etc. etc. etc. -The Protocols- translated into Arabic is one of the best sellers in the Islamic world. This feeds into their Nasty Meme, the War of Islam on the Dar al Harb. And so it goes. Ba'al Chatzaf