• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Max

  1. I haven't posted for some time here, because most discussions are now about American politics and conspiracy theories, neither of which interest me. In most cases I don't know the people concerned, or have only a vague notion who they are. I prefer to discuss things I know something about.
  2. I suppose it is this Doris Gordon:
  3. I just give some possible alternatives to Ellen's notion that "not being able to handle criticism" would automatically imply "banning your opponent", that's all. I myself don't continue a discussion if I've clearly stated my viewpoint and the other side is just going to resort to personal attacks. In such cases I let the other have the last word, I'm not interested in some endless ping pong game that doesn't solve anything.
  4. "Not being able to handle criticism" doesn't necessary imply banning the other person. It could also mean "always insisting on having the last word", or "not being able to say 'lets agree to disagree'" for example.
  5. The ten climate commandments: Among the worshiping public, Pope Franciscus, German Chancellor Merkel and President Steinmeier (the owl). April 2019. Of course, today many other politicians could be added...
  6. 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.
  7. It wouldn't affect that proposition, but neither would it prove it. The file drawer effect or publication bias is a serious problem in many research fields, like psychology or medicine, not ot mention more dubious fields (it's the way to "prove" with spurious significance values desired theories.) If the skill is genuine, I think the cat uses a different strategy. In the video you can see that the cat sometimes doesn't look at all at the cups, so it wouldn't have been able to keep track of the right one. I think a more likely explanation is that it reacts to the sound of the ball. No need to keep track of the relevant cup, it just hears under which cup the ball is still rolling a bit at the end, That said, I think that a perfect score as in the video is unlikely, so there probably has been some cherry picking for the end result.
  8. Very funny and charming, but of course cheating is very easy. Just don't publish the articles that don't confirm your thesis, um... I mean. don't show the videos that don't contain the desired result. That's called the file drawer effect.
  9. I think it's highly unlikely that any sophisticated form of life that is not carbon based can evolve anywhere in the universe. It's the carbon chemistry that is at the basis of the enormously complex and sophisticated machinery that makes such life possible.
  10. You could just shrink the map to a smaller size and project it back onto a smaller globe. After all, you can buy globes in all sizes... Cutting away some pieces will of course not conserve the number of "pixels". The result of reattaching your cut halves wouldn't be an ellipsoid, but a "globe" with a discontinuity in its tangent planes at the "new equator". You could deform this thing to a new spherical globe, that is however missing the pixels around the original equator. Too bad for the people who lived there, they've disappeared.
  11. Nathaniel Branden in "Who is Ayn Rand" (p.92):
  12. There is nothing moral in Roark's blowing op that building. He made a serious error of judgment by surreptitiously helping Keating in designing that building, and therefore he would have had to bear the consequences when that went wrong. In spite of all the noble excuses for a "morally perfect hero", this was just an unwarranted act of scorched earth.
  13. 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.
  14. Why? Suppose you can identify the position of one of the lamps. Then you can draw lines from that position to the head of the person (light ray, shadow margin). But where the ray hits the wall, will depend on the distance of that person to the wall. What from the current perspective is one single line, may, seen from above, be a series of diverging lines, resulting in different positions of the shadow on the wall, depending on the position of that person. And that is known in only one dimension, the second coordinate is unknown. We don't know where his feet are, nor how tall he is. You're right, I had confused the right shadow of the tall man with the left shadow of the small woman.
  15. I was just talking about the picture with the red and green circles. In that message it was claimed that a shadow was "missing" and that that would be evidence of tampering. That picture (I didn't know then it was a still of a video) does not contain enough information to predict where the shadows of the walking people would fall on the wall behind.them. For that you should have to know where on the floor their feet are (what their x-y position is), and that information is missing. When I later saw the video and other photos, it became clear that the tall man (whose shadow was supposedly "missing") was walking farther away from the wall than for example the small woman who followed him, just as I had expected.
  16. At least I showed how you were lying, you just utter wild accusations without substantiation.
  17. You don't understand the importance of the second photo, although I've told you that already. When you compare (enlargements of) both statues, you see that the viewing angle is slightly different (can best be seen in the shadows), but on the face of the statue the difference is practically imperceptible. However, there is an important difference: the resolution. Compare the light distribution on both photos, then you'll see that they are completely in agreement, only is the first picture far less detailed. But there is nothing in the first picture that you cannot find back, in much greater detail of course, in the second picture, so there isn't any artifact in the first picture, it's just a rough, overexposed picture that may stimulate the imagination, like clouds in the sky may do. There is a nice example in astronomy of this effect: the "face on Mars". In a first, low resoluton picture, it did resemble (with a bit of fantasy) a face. But later photos showed that this was just accidental in a noisy picture, the "face" disappeared, no artifact, no sculpting Martians.
  18. Oh, now you are also a clairvoyant? You "know" that I haven't even looked at the picture correctly before I gave my reaction? Well, for your information: I dowloaded the picture first, and opened in my photo editor, tried different settings of brightness and contrast to enhance the details. So you're just lying to dismiss my criticism. If my technical explanations show that there is no evidence that your arguments are valid, that is enough to dismiss those. No, your views are not valid: motion blur in walking persons is no evidence for tampering, sharpness artefacts are no evidence for tampering (except for using a sharpness filter, which may be a default option of the camera), equal fuzziness before and after a walking person is no evidence for tampering, and neither is lack of detail due to overexposure. I can understand that you dont want to spend long hours, delving into this, yours is a lost cause, and I suspect that deep down, you know that.
  19. What intimidation? Do you find it intimidating when someone points out an error in your argument? Apparently you've no answer, as you every time come up with new arguments, ignoring the previous one. Now who is misrepresenting an argument? You never claimed it didn't have a beard? Well, neither did I say that you did, I said that you claimed "that it didn't have a real beard". Is that so strange after you wrote: "A beard that runs past the side of his eyes, up the side of his head, on up to the top and top-front of his head?" and "That's a beard? A UFO alien beard maybe?" Yes, I could have expected that, I suppose. The only artifact there is, is the low resolution and the overexposure. There isn't any evidence of a deliberate, human-made alteration in that picture, you're imagining things that aren't there, and therefore the comparison with UFO's that some people see as evidence for traveling aliens, is justified. Sure, doc. You don't have to tell me potential scenarios for altering a picture, I've a lot of experience in that direction, more than you, I'm sure. However, the point is that you don't have any evidence that such scenarios have been used here. Any argument you brought up, I've refuted, and you blanked out all those refutations. This thread is about such evil conspirators, who for political purposes pretend that a dead woman is still alive. We're not talking here about altering images for fun or for artistic purposes. That artifact exists only in you imagination. I think no one else sees it. Look at the second picture that I showed, where the same statue can be seen, only much sharper. Also an artifact? I can also alter pictures, and I'm sure that you also can put a figure in a photo by using a clone tool. But that is totally irrelevant, the question is: has this picture been tampered with? You haven't given any valid evidence for that. Yeah, that is what you really crave to do, isn't it? Well, you do have an enormous fantasy, I must grant you that. Alas, I can't remember having been conned ever. At least not big-time, because then I surely would remember it. You'll have to read some more self-help books to improve you thought-reading skills. I'm not interested in what value my comments have to others. I just have to to correct invalid arguments, whether they are about Aristotle's paradox of tampering with pictures, that's all. Ha ha, in psychology that's called projection. I think your vanity has been wounded, as you've several times been shown to be wrong in your pompous statements about that picture being tampered with. Time to exit for you.
  20. "Knowing" the story in my head is the essence of psychologizing. The discussion is about conspiracy theories, in this case the theory that the photo that we've been discussing was faked, to bring that old woman in it, who is supposed to be dead. The funny thing is that I hadn't realized that you had put those circles on the picture, to alert us on a supposedly missing shadow, as evidence of tampering. My impression was that you'd copied that photo with circles and all from some conspiracy site. Apart from my reaction, Mark and Anthony also dismissed that "shadow" argument. You then brought up new arguments: 1. The walking people seemed to be "out of focus", in contrast to the standing and sitting people. I pointed out (and Anthony also implied) that that fuzziness was nothing but the motion blur of moving people. 2. Then your next argument for tampering was that the fuzziness should only be on the backside of the walking person, and not on the front. I showed you why this notion is incorrect. 3. Your next argument was about the statue, the "white holes" between statue and shadow. I pointed out that this is a common effect of (often automatic) sharpening of the image. Further you asked where the mouth was. I replied that it was covered by a beard. 4. Then you tried to ridicule the picture of the statue, that it didn't have a real beard. I replied that I didn't see anything wrong in that part of the photo, other than that the statue was overexposed and therefore details were washed out. Anyway, I found a different photo of that scene, this time with considerably better resolution. The statue is obviously the same as on the other photo, only with more detail. You can discern mouth, ear, beard and hair, and these correspond clearly with what the fuzzier image shows. Due to overexposure it is still washed out, but I think nobody will think this has (also?) been tampered with. If I'm prejudiced, then my prejudice is rationality, common sense and respect for reality (omg, now I sound like a real Objectivist). You never disputed any of my refutations of your evidence of tampering, but only came up with again another argument. What is your subtext, or don't you have one? Is the idea that these images are perhaps not tampered with really anathema? Because you once were sure that it had been tampered with?
  21. I just wrote that my interpretation seemed to me to be more likely than the tampering explanation. I think that is a quite reasonable statement, not a "barking dogma". Neither did I use terms like "you dumbass" or anyting similar. You're reading things in my words that aren't there. In German there is an apt word for that: "hineininterpretieren". I see it very well. That you see it differently I can't help, I just try to explain what I see. Sarcasm? No more than your: "That's a beard? A UFO alien beard maybe?" I answer in kind. Or is it Quod licet Iovi...? Ah, are we going to psychologize? On the basis of perceived insults? When other people see something differently, that must be due to their prejudice? I'm not interested in controlling anyone. I just tell it when I see a flawed argument. Is that a dogma? In this case it just meant "that may all be true, but it is beside the point". In my opinion that can be a valid argument. Or am I now barking again?