Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/11/2019 in all areas

  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. 1 point
  3. 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.
  4. 1 point
    Exclusive: Russia Carried Out A 'Stunning' Breach Of FBI Communications System, Escalating The Spy Game On U.S. Soil
  5. 1 point
    Jon, A cool million so far. Tim even thinks these souvenirs are going to be reminders for many people to go vote for him at voting time. Michael
  6. 1 point
    "We're all in this together and working for the same goals, so it's ok if we have the goods on one another" - that sort of reasoning. This would militate against the idea of any other string-puller besides "The Gang." The old Gang families wouldn't want to be controlled by any outside power. Ellen
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 1 point
    Here's a story that invites thought about 'Fake News' ... Court revives suit alleging Fox News inflicted 'emotional torture' on Seth Rich family
  10. 1 point
    Billy's mistake was that he went and done got religion. His M.O. had always been stinging snark, but in the past he limited himself to attacking Others' silly beliefs, while not revealing any that he held himself. Billy's at his best when tackling a fucked up mess, like, say, Pigero and clan for their kookball ideas. Take shots at their stupid shit, and you're untouchable because they have nothing to shoot back at if you haven't given them anything. But now Billy has fucked up by exposing himself. He has revealed some of his silly beliefs. He has invested his reputation in a few whacky notions that he can't support, and he doesn't know how to handle receiving exactly what he's always enjoyed dishing out. J
  11. 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.
  12. 1 point
    Folks, I have just published my SECOND philosophy book - this one on the theory of propositions and related topics. You can check it out on Amazon.com here: https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Your-File-Folder-Propositions/dp/1689839163/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=what's+in+your+file+folder&qid=1568325732&s=books&sr=1-1 This book takes a deep dive into Ayn Rand’s theory of knowledge. It explains why her followers failed to develop a model of the proposition fulfilling the promise of her pioneering work on concepts—and it reveals the essence of propositions and the principles by which they operate in our gaining knowledge by identifying the facts of reality. These revelations are based on a fuller appreciation and application of some of Rand’s most pregnant ideas: the metaphor of concepts as “mental file folders”—the unit-perspective as the key that unlocks the conceptual stage of awareness and welds together its three levels—form and content of cognitive awareness both being objective—and consciousness essentially consisting of differentiation and integration (functionally) and subject and object (structurally). On this basis, the author offers a significant revision to Rand's model of concepts and a new model of propositions, giving considerable attention to axioms and statements about nonexistent subjects and offering a fuller explanation of how syllogisms function in grasping truth. The author's main contention is that Objectivism's epistemology (and epistemology in general) lacks a viable model of propositional knowledge due to neglect of the "unit-perspective" view of concepts. This pioneering insight of Rand's, he says, not only is an essential building block of her concept theory, but also is the means for providing the clearest X-ray picture of our multilayered conceptual knowledge. Using the unit-perspective to expand Rand's theory of concepts, the author then introduces "duplex" and "triplex" units, which he shows are the components of propositions and syllogisms, which are composed of concepts that integrate single or "simplex" units, as he calls them. The author also argues that Rand's largely underdeveloped concept of the "dual-aspect objective" is vital for understanding how knowledge is grounded in reality. he explains how consciousness essentially involves an interaction between a conscious subject (i.e., organism) and some of aspect of the world which becomes the object of that subject's awareness, then applies this idea to perception, introspection, concepts, propositions, and syllogisms. The author also defines content of awareness carefully distinguishing it from both object and form of awareness, and applies those distinctions throughout.In addition, the author discusses how truth is both dual-aspect and contextual, and he shows how units, too, have a dual aspect, even on the level of syllogisms. He also shows how differentiation and integration are the conscious processes at work, for better or worse, in both logic and in logical errors, which include the fallacies of "Frozen Abstraction" and "False Alternative," as well as a long-standing Objectivist conflation of falsity and contradiction and a relatively more recent Objectivist error, the fallacy of "genuine awareness."
  13. 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
  14. 1 point
    The Gang from QAnon Anonymous podcast hooked up with the jaded, middle-class meddler Jared Holt. Maybe we could assemble a list of OL Member-Approved QAnon-whisperers. My guess is that Praying Medic, InTheMatrixxx, Liz Crokin and Joe M (StormIsUponUs) would be in a Top Ten.
  15. 1 point
  16. 1 point
    Jon, Is the AnOn66 personage someone you think is a fake Q fan? I thought you'd posted some AnOn66 things, but maybe I'm misremembering. Ellen
  17. 1 point
    Jon, Neither did I. I don't think it was publicized anywhere important. On the other hand, the entire world through the fake news mainstream media knew about the impeachment demonstrations. They didn't report on the turnout (or lack of turnout to be more exact), but everyone knew about the impeachment demonstrations. Michael
  18. 1 point
    Jon, In compensation, there are such things as "impeachment rallies" -- in DC at that. From Redstate today: Embarrassing: Leftist Groups Threw An “Impeach Trump” Rally In DC And No One Showed Up From Breitbart Monday: Leftists’ D.C. ‘Impeach Donald Trump’ Protests a Bust The people who staged this were not a bunch of nobodies. Take a look. From the Breitbart article (my bold): The idea was to shame Congress, on its first day back from its August break, into getting rid of the dastardly Trump. But it's awfully hard to shame anyone for anything if there is no one doing the shaming. The Redstate article mentioned another interesting tidbit about leftie demonstrations. Many, many, many of them are nothing more than activist-funded hooks for the fake news media to spin a fake news narrative to see if they can get a little something going--to try to make a fact happen where there is nothing. The reference in the first paragraph is to the public's lack of interest in impeachment. (My bold below.) Oh... Well, there's Trump again... I forgot we were talking about the futility of Q nobodies who stage rallies in DC where a mere couple of hundred people show up... Michael
  19. 1 point
    There is no such thing as a “Q rally,” Q has called for no rallies. Are those Antifa pretending to be sincerely interested in Q? I have never heard of any of these clowns you hold up, Billy. It looks like bullshit to me. All of it. Try again.
  20. 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
  21. 1 point
    The big demonstration at the monument has attracted at least a couple of hundred people. The live Periscope feed has no sound, which is kind of sad for the producers. New beginnings and ... wrath. Which makes me think of the lust for a purge, and the Committee of Public Safety.
  22. 1 point
    I think you're right. Billy doesn't get it, and can't get it. It's like Merlin and Tony not having the ability to grasp Aristotle's Wheel, and Bob not having the ability to grasp the Polar Travel Puzzle. Cognitive limitations. J
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 1 point
    Science fact. The earth is warming. It has been warming since the bottom of the Little Ice Age. Question; What are the drivers of the warming trend? What are the feedbacks of the complex thermodynamic processes that take places in the land, sea and air. The science is thermodynamics. And all science advances on hypothetical propositions and assumptions which are eventually corroborated or falsified empirically. In point of fact we cannot do anything empirically which is not somewhat theory laden. Example. Measure a piece of wood. Easy you say. Take a ruler and lay it lengthwise on the wood. BUT!!!! you have to pick up the ruler and move it to the wood. You have hypothesized that the mild acceleration applied to the ruler to carry it to the wood does not distort the ruler. In a word, you have assumed the ruler is rigid enough to withstand your handling of it to bring to the wood. So even a carpenter cannot escape hypotheticals.....
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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
  30. 1 point
    Roger, Robert Kolker lecturing us on good manners is like Rodney King saying “Can’t we all just get along.” Note that Kolker removed his dirty tagline (in Hebrew) before becoming a goody-goody.
  31. 1 point
  32. 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
  33. 1 point
    Korben, What you appear to be saying is that you don't actually care what Donald Trump's position is on anything. All that matters is that he is winning. That's great for Donald Trump, and it's pretty attractive to anyone who is, or will be, on his payroll. What does it do for you? Robert
  34. 1 point
    I hope you realize that this does not prove that Donald Trump is not Gail Wynand. (Actually, I think Drumpf is more of an amalgam of Gail Wynand, Peter Keating, and Lois Cook. Electing him would be, to borrow the words of Tamara Balderas, "essentially putting a monkey on the throne.") REB
  35. 1 point
    But Drumpf isn't going to rule. Hillary will march up to the throne and take the crown and scepter, and Drumpf will go back to making billions and figuring out which corners to cut on people's Constitutional rights when they get in his way, Howard Roark type that he is REB
  36. 1 point
    I agree. There's so much of this that is parallel to, or reminiscent of, Obama's selective enforcement of federal law, it's hard to see Drumpf as ruling as anything other than yet another statist thug (politician) indulging his own personal preferences as to what goes and what stays, what gets enforced and what gets ignored. Constitutional oath of office? WTF is that? Mere words you utter before being given the keys to the People's Palace. REB
  37. 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
  38. 1 point
    Stomp 'em enough, and then they'll sit back and listen to your stories? Sounds more like Peter Keating looking at unattractive people in a restaurant and reflecting on how seeing unsuccessful people made him feel good and worthy. Amazing. Trump, touted by some as another Howard Roark, much more like Keating. I love it! (Keating built buildings, too.) REB
  39. 1 point
    Michael, Apparently campaign rhetoric is excusable only when it is produced by Donald J. Trump. Then, no matter how crude, overbearing, or preposterous, it becomes golden. Unless Donald Trump is secretly trying to advance the interests of the NEA, AFSCME, and SEIU—a job better left to Hillary Clinton, who can afford to be open about that part of her agenda—why is he slamming Scott Walker's record as governor? Only because Walker is not bowing before him. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, Ben Carson gets from Donald Trump, should Trump secure election to the Presidency. Carson actually should spit every time he thinks of Donald Trump. Trump didn't care whether Cruz's people took votes away from Carson in the Iowa caucuses, by repeating a CNN story and not retracting what they'd said once it was clear CNN had it wrong. Trump cared because Cruz beat him in the Iowa caucuses. If Trump had taken the caucuses, would we ever have heard one word out of him on the subject? Now if Ben Carson has finally figured that out, he is spitting. But he's having to do it in private. Robert
  40. 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
  41. 1 point
    Jon, Do you have any idea what Trump and Lewandowski's immediate reactions were, three weeks ago? You can look them up. Robert Campbell
  42. 0 points
    You believe incorrectly. Borrowed it, no desire to support Weart by buying it, nor to have the discussion of it you try to elicit. Ellen
  43. 0 points
    Christian, He isn't recognizing the name "Roy Spencer," and I'm not recalling his having mentioned it. Lots of names in the scene; maybe someone significant has been forgotten or overlooked. Who is Roy Spencer? As to the indicated thesis, indeed the point about the effect of "precipitation systems" -- generally, of water vapor -- being neglected is important. Water vapor is about 95% of so-called greenhouse gases; carbon dioxide, whether human-produced or natural, is only about 3%. The effect of water vapor in heating/cooling -- in what relationship -- has mostly been ignored as if it's irrelevant. Btw, I'm not desirous of becoming immersed in a discussion of the scientific issues. For one thing, I hear about those as a steady diet around here and I do have other subjects I'd like to think about as well. Plus, the factors are SO complex, and you know I don't want to be using my computer-screen time discussing the nitty-grittys. In fact I've been avoiding even opening any thread about global warming. But out of macabre curiosity I couldn't resist looking given the title of this thread. ;-) Ellen ___