Popular Content

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

  1. 3 points
    There's an overwhelming over-abundance of more than enough information. And that's just in any single frame of the video. Consider all of the content of all of the frames, and there are multiple, layered, redundant means of determining whether or not any entity, attribute, action or effect seen in any frame conforms to reality. The space, the objects within it, and the motions are all precisely measurable. Then add all of the visual information from other cameras at other vantage points... Each participant on this thread who has commented on the visual evidence is right about some things, yet wrong about others. The issue is not that the visual evidence is insufficient, but that none of you has the technical knowledge to be making any conclusions, or to be dismissing anyone else's observations or concerns, or to be throwing accusations of kookiness or conspiracy theorizing at anyone who thinks that something in a photo looks a bit odd. J
  2. 3 points
    https://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-milkyway-over-beaverhill-county-jestephotography-ltd.html Something a lil different than my Wildlife photography. Nikon Z7 mirrorless with a Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 Art series lens for Astrophotography.
  3. 3 points
    I hope my posts get a lot of sads (from the anti-Trump bitches!)
  4. 2 points
    Last July Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard published “Regarding Carl Barney and Scientology” in defense of Barney. That didn’t satisfy some of his readers so a few days ago he published a Part Two, same webpage as what is now called Part One. I review it at: Barney Continues Telling His Story
  5. 2 points
    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
    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
  7. 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.
  8. 2 points
    Sunny Lohmann hosts a podcast featuring Ed Powell and Ed Mazlish: youtube.com/watch?v=995Riq8JdUo
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 2 points
  12. 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.
  13. 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/
  14. 2 points
  15. 2 points
    So today I had an interesting post on my twitter feed. A person looking to purchase a rights managed image for an add campaign. So I sent her my personal email via Message in order to get more details. i sent her a link to the image she wanted and ten minutes later BAM! https://fineartamerica.com/saleannouncement.html?id=9becce4a0811b1bc99e633e17bff67ee Kinda cool eh?
  16. 2 points
    Alex Jones is a fighter. He will kick their asses so hard that they will have to clear their throat to fart. They will wish to God they never tangled with Alex Jones.
  17. 2 points
    The perjury trap ...
  18. 2 points
  19. 2 points
    Heh. Why pick on InfoWars? Sure, it's often goofy, but it's really no more goofy than anything else. CNN, New York Times, Time. It's equal to or possibly a little less goofy that The View, Dan Rather and any of the former Democrat politicians and operatives who are now calling themselves "journalists" (like George Stephanopoulos, for example). Why single out InfoWars? MSK is supposed to be embarrassed by his goof balls while the other side reveres theirs and pretends that they're not good balls?
  20. 2 points
    Can a person really be economically coerced, or is it simply a choice? Was Cohen using the tapes for insurance or a way to blackmail President Trump? Can he be disbarred? In Maryland I don’t think you can record someone unless they know what your are doing. Peter From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 01:29:41 -0500 a.d. smith wrote: "Recently, I was arguing with an anarcho-socialist friend about fundamental political and ethical principles. I had stated that I was opposed to the use of force in social relations (except in retaliation). He said that I was inconsistent in that I was not opposed to the use of "economic coercion" (e.g., the threat of firing someone) as well as physical force. I was wondering how my fellow Atlanteans would reply to this argument I think I did a fairly good job in elucidating the differences between physical force and "economic coercion," but I could have done better. What would you guys have said in this situation?” I find that well-constructed examples and counter-examples can sometimes communicate the distinction better than abstract arguments, or at least serve as an introduction to them. Many years ago, during a college seminar on Marxism, my professor gave the following popular example: Suppose I am stranded in the middle of the desert, and I run across the only oasis in my vicinity. It is privately owned, and the owner tells me that I must (a) work for him at fifty cents per hour, or (b) stay off his property. And since he is charging $5,000 for the food and water that are required to sustain my life during the remainder of my journey, this means that I am being economically coerced -- indeed, enslaved -- since I must either accept the offer or face certain death. I responded by changing one condition of the example. The same oasis owner has more money than he knows what to do with, so (as before) he tells me that I must take a job to earn my supplies, but he now offers me $10,000 per hour instead of fifty cents. So now I can earn what I need in 30 minutes (during which the owner, who is starved for intellectual companionship, only requests that I talk to him about philosophy) and even walk away with a handsome surplus. The professor then protested, "But that's not a realistic example." "Neither is your example," I replied, "but that's not the point. The purpose of the example is to isolate the key elements that generate what you call economic coercion. If your example, in which I am economically coerced to work for 50 cents an hour is valid, then so is my example where I am economically coerced to work for $10,000 per hour by discussing philosophy. I didn't change anything essential in the hypothetical; all I did was change some details, which should be irrelevant to the point you are making. So if you claim that my example doesn't qualify as economic coercion, then why doesn't it? I will die just as surely if I turn down the offer for $10,000 as if I refuse to work for fifty cents. What's the difference? According to your definition, I am being coerced in either case -- but it sounds a little strange to say that I am being 'forced' to work at the higher wage. You are loading the example in your favor by including very low wages, but the amount of the wage is immaterial to the point you wish to make. Surely the validity of your argument should not depend solely on its emotional appeal, so it should make equal sense to take about a wage-slave who is forced to discuss philosophy at $10,000 per hour." I don't remember my exact words, of course, but the preceding is a fair representation of my argument. It took the discussion in some interesting directions that might otherwise have been overlooked – such as whether the CEO of a multinational corporation is also economically "coerced" to accept his multi-million dollar salary -- and the discussion ended when the Marxist professor said, "Well, I'll have to give some additional thought to your example." That's about as close to an unconditional surrender as a student is ever likely to get from a professor. Ghs From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 04:40:33 EDT A. D. Smith wrote "Recently, I was arguing with an anarcho-socialist friend about fundamental political and ethical principles. I had stated that I was opposed to the use of force in social relations (except in retaliation). He said that I was inconsistent in that I was not opposed to the use of "economic coercion" (e.g., the threat of firing someone) as well as physical force.” There is no such thing as "economic coercion." We owe it to people not to use force against them; we do not owe it to them to supply them with employment nor to keep them employed if we do not choose to. People have a right to seek jobs; they do not have a right to *have* jobs if the employer finds them unsuitable. So to threaten an employee with firing is in no sense of the term "coercion." The job is not his by right, but only by the decision of the owner of the business. Barbara From: "a.d. smith" To: "George H. Smith" Subject: Re: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 05:06:07 -0400 (EDT) On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, George H. Smith wrote: The example of the oasis brings up my friend's second basic argument --- the possibility that first-comers may claim all the natural resources in an area to the detriment of people who arrive in the area later. These people may hold their property without improving or with mixing only a token portion of their labor with it.(I pointed that historically most examples of land speculation of this type were made possible by the state, but his point was that even in a stateless society, this type of engrossing could be possible. My reply was that under a system of competing governments, a protection agency that enforced an obviously illegitimate claim to unimproved natural resources would likely arose the anger of the community at large). From: "William Dwyer" To: Atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:34:02 -0700 a.d. smith wrote, >The example of the oasis brings up my friend's second basic argument --- the possibility that first-comers may claim all the natural resources in an area to the detriment of people who arrive in the area later. These people may hold their property without improving or with mixing only a token portion of their labor with it. > I fail to see how this is an argument against capitalism, since capitalism doesn't sanction this kind of unearned appropriation. In order to acquire property under capitalism, you need to mix your labor with a previously unowned resource, or acquire the property from its previous owner by mutual consent. Obviously, there are issues with regard to the specifics of acquiring previously unowned land, but these cannot form the basis of any serious argument against capitalism. I n any case, the Coase Theorem in economics (for which Ronald Coase was given the Nobel Prize) states that if property rights are clearly defined and transaction costs are low, resources will tend to flow towards their highest valued uses, regardless of who owns them. In other words, even assuming that people could appropriate land without mixing their labor with it, in a free-market economy, the land could be bid away in exchange for money. The highest bid would tend to reflect its most profitable uses, by reflecting what consumers would be most willing to spend their money on. Thus, under capitalism, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference how the property is initially acquired. It will eventually be allocated toward its most popular and desired uses. If laissez-faire capitalism existed in Latin America, for example, the large landed aristocracies would not last, because they would either be induced to sell their land at an exorbitant price, or to use it in ways that are the most profitable and consumer-friendly. Bill
  21. 2 points
  22. 2 points
    Folks , Trump did not win an election but orchestrate a coup d’etat against the establishment . This ain’t left and right , nor liberals and conservatives . It’s We The People v The Establushment Bullets are not the weapon of choice in this Revolution , it’s memes . I called this a Revolution near the beginning of the thread . I thought that the establishment would win , hence I called for Rubio to win the nomination . Trump won , he is digging in and personally , I would love to see The Constitution to be amended to give him three terms , but that cannot happen so hopefully President Ivanka will continue what we have started in 2024 . Who is Donald Trump ? Reread Atlas Shrugged
  23. 1 point
    “We are not really in the business of asking for the share of that power. We are in the business of trying to grab that power and return it to the people.” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) Link. Of course, "return it to the people" is a transparent cover for giving immense powers to Omar and a few like-minded with her to satisfy their power lust.
  24. 1 point
    Michael, OK, we weren't on the same "religionist"-meaning wavelength. I definitely see William as scientistic. Very much so, and I've seen him that way practically from my earliest acquaintance with his posts on the old SoloHQ. I think that he gets major self-esteem boost from considering himself fighting for Science-Good against Religion-Bad. And he constantly preaches scientism in his indirect fashion. So, agreed about his being religionist in the sense you've been meaning. All the same, scientistic as I think William is, I nonetheless don't see him believing specifically in AGW because "scientists say." He is aware that there are a lot of good scientists who say nay. I think he mistakenly believes - because of developments in the Arctic - that the yay-sayers have been vindicated. But fine with me not arguing about that. I wouldn't want to get into the details in any case since I don't consider educating William worth the time and trouble. Ellen
  25. 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.
  26. 1 point
    From: Jimmy Wales To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: David Kelley on civility Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:33:13 -0800. Here's a fairly long quote from David Kelley that is directly applicable to questions about why a civility policy is a good idea on a mailing list which makes an effort to be creative, open, and intensely intellectual. From “Unrugged Individualism:” The Selfish Basis of Benevolence. p. 38: The forms of civility, and the broader realm of manners, are therefore dismissed by some people as arbitrary. "Why should I confirm to arbitrary social standards? I am an individualist." But while the forms are conventional, what is conveyed through those forms is not. If my argument so far has been correct, then it _is_ objectively important to acknowledge each other's independence in some way or other, whether by saying 'please,' or 's`il vous plait," or by some gesture understood to have that meaning. It doesn't matter which forms we use to convey this, any more than it matters which sounds we use to express a given concept in language. But insofar as civility has a communicative function, it does matter that we use the same forms. Someone who does not practice these forms is rude. We can assume that his failure to comply reflects indifference to what the forms express (unless he is ignorant, as in the case of a foreigner). A similar answer can be given to the complaint that the forms of civility are inauthentic. "What if I don't like the present Grandma gave me and I don't really feel any gratitude? Am I not falsifying my feeling if I say _thank-you_ nonetheless?" The purpose of that thank-you is not to convey one's specific feelings about the gift, or the person who gives it. Its purpose is to acknowledge that it was a gift, from an autonomous person, not something owed one by an underling. (If Grandma wants more than this, and makes it clear that she really wants to know whether one liked the gift, then one should tell her, as tactfully as possible.) Civility, then, may be defined as _the expression -- chiefly through conventional forms -- of one's respect for the humanity and independence of others, and of one's intent to resolve conflicts peacefully_.
  27. 1 point
  28. 1 point
  29. 1 point
    Now you pay up, Assholes. Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump FollowFollow @realDonaldTrump More California has been forced to cancel the massive bullet train project after having spent and wasted many billions of dollars. They owe the Federal Government three and a half billion dollars. We want that money back now. Whole project is a “green” disaster! 5:29 PM - 13 Feb 2019
  30. 1 point
  31. 1 point
    The above is yet more confirmation. As Jon just said: "I think we will all have to accept that our discussants cannot process what we are saying, cannot cognitively manage all the parts, conditions and motions at once and that there is no teaching innovation that will change that." J
  32. 1 point
    It depends on who you look at. I disagree in part. I would suggest that discovering that the graph is misleading depends on what we look at. In other words, it depends on verification work. This work can be approached objectively. Who writes something may be probative in some cases, insofar as one does discover a persistent pattern of poor reasoning, special pleading, fallacious arguments, shoddy investigation and so on. The graph is misleading. Verifying or testing or checking its constituent data-sources is the work of reason, and can be independently judged. It would make more sense to me if evidence of the 'main campaign' were highlighted. In which case, one would try to 'falsify' the contention. "Defending the rights of pedophile victims to become prostitutes is the author's main campaign.' Is the claim true, partly true, warranted in part, false in part, wholly false? A clear example of this would be handy. Is that a quote or a quoat? So, I am guessing that your efforts to 'verify' the graphic were successful? If so, you are able to not only understand the 'verification' attempted by Ms Craptastic, not only state it in your own words, but also rubbish the argument with reason and fact. "To the person" arguments are not persuasive on their own. They leave work of rational inquiry undone.
  33. 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
  34. 1 point
    Slippage is starting to smell like a smuggled-in stolen concept.
  35. 1 point
    "The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution"; "The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution". Read carefully. See? "Wheels"; without slipping? You have missed the premise of the exercise, you are not alone. If "slipping" were admissible, this would be elementary to 'fix', mechanically. But it goes deeper than that. Here is the premise of the 'paradox': Solve, explain, resolve, justify, or whatever - the phenomenon that the travel of an inner wheel, without slipping, will be extended beyond its circumference. That's all. On the face of it, the inner wheel's extension appears counter-intuitive. And too, we have the dimensions/circumference/distance of the outer wheel, to support this theory for the inner wheel. But it's a wrong conflation. I show that this behavior is normal and inherent to a wheel inside a wheel. You can visibly see it in many ways. The large wheel is the determining factor. End of paradox.
  36. 1 point
    MSK, Welcome to discussion! You may have missed it earlier, but here's a video of what happens when a large wheel rolls freely on a surface without slipping, and it carries along the smaller wheel which is firmly attached to it. The small wheel necessarily slips/skids while it rolls on the surface at its base (as described in the actual "Aristotle's Wheel Paradox," rather than the one that Merlin has recently dishonestly edited at Wikipedia in order to fake reality). The issue here is that Merlin and Tony can't visually track and grasp the small wheel's slippage/skidding on its surface under conditions which don't include as much visual information as in the above. In the above video example, I've included all sorts of textures and markings so that anyone should be able to track the motion and see what's happening. The problem has been that other visual representations haven't included any such markings, and, without them, people like Merlin and Tony very easily get lost and confused. But they don't want to accept the fact that they've been fooled, so they choose to believe their mistaken interpretations of the visual representations which don't have textures and markings, and they therefore conclude that above representation, in which the slippage/skidding is clearly visually obvious, is, as Merlin has claimed, a "con job," a "scam," and an "optical illusion." Jon had also posted videos of marked wheels and surfaces in which the slippage/skidding is undeniable, and none of it has gotten through to Merlin or Tony. They are not cognitively suited to grasping it. They are visuospatially/mechanically inept (that's not a moral judgment, but a simple, objective evaluation of their cognitive abilities in this area). And they are also stubborn, and refusing to consider others' arguments and evidence. J
  37. 1 point
    Same here! Tony, tell us about this one...
  38. 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.
  39. 1 point
  40. 1 point
    You do realize that you're on an Objectivist site, no??? High self-evaluation is considered a good thing in these parts. Ever heard of Ayn Rand? Heh. Ever read her self appraisals? Heh. Trump is only mildly narcissistic in comparison to the average O-ist. J
  41. 1 point
    Many of the Cordair kids, as well as Rand-follower artists who are not represented by Cordair, have called themselves "Romantic Realists™." Cordair's own subheader is "The finest in Romantic Realism." I don't think that's an accurate descriptor of most of this type of art. The visual style is indeed realism: The objects/entities depicted are easily identifiable and realistically rendered. However, the environments and situations are highly artificial and unnaturally overly orchestrated. Forced. And the aesthetics of the poses aren't really romantic, but stiff, empty, lifeless. It's as if the artists think that hanging nightgowns on a rigidly posed figure in a architecturally rich environment mathematically equals "romanticism"? Instead of "Romantic Realism," wouldn't it be closer to the truth to call this stuff something like Posed, Staged, Overt Signalism? Or Conspicuously Exaggerated Bursting With Bodily Physicality While Remaining Facially Calm and Expressionless In An Odd Environment That Was Selected Not Because Of Any Contextual Relevance But Because The Artist Maybe Thought That It In Itself Would Clearly Signal Romanticism ("Um, today I think I'll put on my ballet slippers, but maybe go topless, and bring some strips of cloth to let the wind swirl around me while I balance on something like a classical column or globe out in the middle of the ocean.")? J
  42. 1 point
    Horrible. So, no. But take out the figure, yes. ---Brant just an opinion
  43. 1 point
    Oh yeaaaaaaaaah... I wish I had thought of this one... Michael
  44. 1 point
    No more excuses. Styx finally has his shirt on! When I say the giant social media platforms are not strictly private property anymore because of their integration with the government, Styx lays out a really good case for this in this video. There's even more to it, but at least this is in plain language and it's really hard to refute. If taxpayers are footing the bill, they should not be selectively banned. Besides, didn't the courts say that President Trump could not ban offensive comments to his tweets (although that is a feature Twitter offers) because it was a public service or something like that? Well... Pandora's box is now open... On another note and in defense of Korben, I have to admit, the skull with an eyeball in it is an improvement over the scrawny chest. He's still gotta work on that John Lennon look, though. Michael
  45. 1 point
  46. 1 point
    LOLOL... I found this on the Interwebs somewhere. Michael
  47. 1 point
    I love the way that Billy's laugh wrinkles his nose. J
  48. 1 point
    That makes sense. People want something that others have produced. They want it for free, so therefore need to convince others, and possibly also themselves, that they deserve to take it with force (preferably with the government doing it for them) -- they need to promote the idea that they are morally justified. Therefore those from whom they want to take something have to be cast as villains. The hatred part of it is a facade, or a byproduct. It's not the core issue or cause. J
  49. 1 point
    If Earth were invaded by aliens ? from another Galaxy , I have 100% confidence that President Trump would be able to deal with them effectively , either by force or negotiations . Trump is literally that capable
  50. 1 point
    Including those birdbrains in North Korea ...