Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/18/2018 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
    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.
  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
    Sunny Lohmann hosts a podcast featuring Ed Powell and Ed Mazlish: youtube.com/watch?v=995Riq8JdUo
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 2 points
  10. 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.
  11. 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/
  12. 2 points
  13. 1 point
    Jon, OK. When writing, I believed you (and others) believe that. Now you have asserted it is poetry. So you do believe it. You do! You do! Michael
  14. 1 point
  15. 1 point
    Bump: C'mon, O-vish necromancers, give it a jolt. J
  16. 1 point
    William's power is only from our engagement of him. --Brant
  17. 1 point
    Yes, thank you MSK for the book recommendation. ( I was hoping my implicit laziness would be enough to prod you into foregoing a due chastisement and giving up some goods : ) ) e-luddites unite !
  18. 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.
  19. 1 point
    Here's a little meme I just now slapped together. Michael
  20. 1 point
    How long do you think it will take to forget the name of the judge overseeing this decision, I'm not even aware of the name now. Any bets that person retires in say two years, just to be safe, and lives remarkable well on a judge's pension (?) , or am I just too cynical.
  21. 1 point
    While we're asking stuff, I ask you to get a thorough psychiatric evaluation, and if you don't do it, I might call you such terrible names that you will go mad with terror and turn into a raving liberal. (Such are the heights of rational discourse on OL these days, apparently).
  22. 1 point
  23. 1 point
  24. 1 point
    Blah, small potatoes. Tony was experimenting with ideas of Darrell's cones and funnels mimicking a large wheel and small wheel. Weeks ago. Of course the first thing to do is to level the ends.
  25. 1 point
    Once a track is put in, the inner wheel's motion isn't any longer just the 'effect' of the big wheel's 'cause'. The two achieve causal parity. The total weight, drag, etc. and velocity of both (fixed) wheels has been transferred onto two surfaces, equalising them, so skidding the smaller one will cause the big wheel to skid too, and vice-versa. Ignoring causality is partly where the slipists have slipped up. When the front wheel on your bicycle skids, doesn't the bike skid?
  26. 1 point
    Max, So, is it to you more advisable to trust the establishment people who run endless war for profit, support an enormous fake news propaganda media, and have been caught time and time again using unsuspecting people as guinea pigs? Let me be devil's advocate for a second. As I understand your post, you only got your information about this guy from other people. Is that correct? I mean, you didn't look at anything he had to say. Am I right in that supposition (based on the tenor of your post), or have you actually looked to see if he has anything interesting to present? If you only got your info from other people, then your advice to not trust him comes from information your gleaned second-hand and some suppositions you probably added on your own. Correct? Is that rational? Don't misunderstand me. I'm not advocating for Russell Blaylock. I don't know his work. I'm advocating for a more open view of looking at things, especially if brainstorming the causes of an epidemic. I agree that many times there are "conspiracy nuts." But I have also seen "conspiracy nuts" turn out to be correct. I used to do like you do. Just dismiss something out of hand based on second hand information. I lost my certainty in that when I began checking the facts of everyone, not just the respectable people. I highly recommend first hand looking at everything. But it's your mind, your time, your values... Michael
  27. 1 point
    You are doubtless correct about it being intentional. The precious idiots are helping spread Q and his message, it is working exactly as you describe. They can't help themselves, so, by their stupidity and lack of self control, they help us. Regarding "Fake News Media is Fake, Fake, Fake!" That is commentary from the hosting site https://qmap.pub in the form of their own invented post "title" it is not part of Q's post #2639. Q has several authors. There are distinct voices, for sure. "Fake, fake, fake" and "fight, fight, fight" are common. "These people are sick," "These people are stupid." also common. Not all of them are wordsmiths. Fake News Media is Fake, Fake, Fake! 2639 Q!!mG7VJxZNCI21 Dec 2018 - 8:42:54 AM FAKE NEWS.jpeg Why do people trust the FAKE NEWS media? Anons can play this game all day long. Compare & Contrast. FAKE! FAKE! FAKE! Q
  28. 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.
  29. 1 point
    You stopped following or saying anything to do with Rand long ago. Ps: your keyboard warrior bravery is pathetic. You can’t even defend an idea against a “leftist”. You just call them a cunt or a pedo or a retard. Yup it is his site.
  30. 1 point
    Sure, soon as Jon learns to stfu.
  31. 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.
  32. 1 point
    It mostly went away when I started fighting back. They mistook my non confrontation as weakness, until I had enough. Lol word got around that I spanked one of them with my shoe...well no I beat him with my shoe until he cried..a lot. Thing is they never fought one on one...always 4-6 on one. So I’d do things like clothesline them while playing soccer. In a nutshell I got even, and then it stopped. (well slowed to occasional catcalls etc but good enough. Ended up going to a different high school than the majority of the others. Was like starting a brand new life. High school was awesome. Sure there were other things. They hated that I’d finish science tests in half the time and get 98-100% without having to study...
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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 😊
  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
    You meant "Randalize" didn't you?
  38. 1 point
    Same here! Tony, tell us about this one...
  39. 1 point
    LOL... Perfect: Michael
  40. 1 point
    Lawrrd tunderin jeezus bai! Ware ya tuuuu? I’ll comes ware yur at! Newfie to English translation? Where the fuck are you? I’ll be right there.
  41. 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.
  42. 1 point
    William, You once said you wanted a recent example of a false flag. Well, you're looking at it. Unfortunately, this is a false flag made by idiots who can't even shoot straight and, what's worse, it's a Hail Mary pass to get media attention to bump some lame-ass stuff damaging to the Democrats off prime time instead of hiding an actual dastardly deed, but there it is. Friggin' amateurs... In the same vein, there's a highly racist robocall going around in Florida aimed at Gillum. It's attributed to one eminent group called "Road to Power" in Idaho that's supposedly a white supremacist group. I listened to part of their recent podcast (on Bitchute) to see what they were about and this is another staged bullshit fake-out. The guy started preaching that we need to abolish freedom of the press and put the all the press under government control. The problem is, white power people just don't talk like that. Friggin' amateurs... This shit is not even worth debunking. Everybody sees what's going on. I hope they enjoy their Blue Wave bye-bye... Michael
  43. 1 point
    I’m pretty sure they left because they got tired of reading “The world according to Letendre followed by mass Qanon/mass pedophile under every rock crap posts?”
  44. 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'.
  45. 1 point
  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
    Un-raveling the supposed paradox Me - here: "I think you added the line 'The outermost circle's/wheel's circumference is a maximum, not a minimum' on an edit." Merlin - here: "I should have said, "A point on the outermost circle's/wheel's circumference sets a maximum, not a minimum." That is for a curved path. I was mislead by your saying, 'all points of all circles of the "paradox" setup ..... travel farther than the outermost circle's/wheel's circumference.' Mid-sentence you changed focus from a curved path to the straight horizontal path. The straight horizontal path is a minimum." Your insertion clarifies what you meant, but, no, I didn't change focus from the curved path to the straight horizontal path. According to your own chart, "all points of all circles of the 'paradox' setup ..... travel farther than the outermost circle's/wheel's circumference." The only point which travels exactly the distance of the outermost circle's/wheel's circumference is the center, which, as only one point, isn't a circle. I'll re-post your chart in full. (I'm presuming, btw, that you're correct in giving the distance traveled by a point on the outermost circumference as 8*Rb. I haven't checked that out.) I've subsequently realized in so many words what I've "sensed" all along: The only path which is relevant to the supposed paradox is the straight horizontal path. Seeing why requires distinguishing each position of the total configuration from the particular point occupying that position at a given time. At each instant, however far laterally the instantaneous point of tangency - which is to say, the 6:00 o'clock position of the outer circumference - has traveled is how far laterally every other position has traveled. Which point instantaneously occupies each position (except the center) keeps changing, but the relationship of all positions to one another remains constant. For instance, the 9:00 o'clock position of the outer circumference - whatever point is occupying that position at a given instant - is always a quarter distance around the circumference from the 6:00 o'clock position of the outer circumference and is always a radius distance from the center. Similarly, every other position, whether on the outer circumference or internal to the figure, is always in the same relationship to all other positions of the figure and is always a constant distance from the center. Thus, the distance the center - the only position always occupied by the same point - has traveled laterally is the distance every position has traveled laterally. There's only one lateral distance involved, uniform for each position of the whole figure. The supposed paradox arises from having the false presumption that a position on the internal circle should have moved a different distance laterally from the distance moved laterally by a comparable position on the outer circumference (e.g., the 6:00 o'clock position of the inner circle compared to the 6:00 o'clock position of the outer circumference). The false presumption results from thinking of the internal circle as if it were an independent figure rolling on its own. But it isn't an independent figure. It's a fixed-relationship subconfiguration of the total configuration. Ellen
  48. 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!
  49. 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.
  50. 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.