Climate of Complete Certainty

[George Herold]

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 7:05:24 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 4:27:55 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:43:38 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/9/2020 1:47, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump.   It's not working.

Works for me.



Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Yes. But I think he clearly does not possess half the brains it takes
to mastermind what happened.

Hillary's team had a mountain of brains, and money, and lost.


Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

He has common sense, a will to win, and luck.

Super smart people I admire have met with Trump privately.
They were blown away. They say the man's brilliant.

Trump is loved here. I've never seen anything like it.
(I'm ~60) I see no such enthusiasm on the left.
And much as I like Joe Rogan, if Bernie was the D nominee..
I'd be hard pressed to vote for either he or T.

I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.

I try to listen to as little news as possible.
Sports and weather are OK. Except for my below average
hockey team.

Easing obnoxious regs and lowering the marginal corporate tax
rate have re-ignited half the country (or more).

Yeah more deficit spending. If you can borrow at ~zero interest
it seems silly not to... but it's not what I would do.

George H.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[George Herold]

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 10:40:37 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:00:41 -0800 (PST), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 12:26:19 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:17:51 -0800 (PST), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 6:47:08 PM UTC-5, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump. It's not working.


Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....
Trump is loved here in 'Trump land' Western NY. It's like nothing I've
seen before. The Deli down the bottom of my hill sells Trump hats at
the check out.

Makes sense. In the culture (and financial) wars, T is on the side of
the working-class, not college indoctrinated, non-coastal folks. The
ones who keep us alive.
Yeah, if you come here and sit on a bar stool, you'll also
find a good dose of racism. (I'm thinking NFL at the moment.
blacks who earn a lot of money are hated.)
T knows just how to tweak his base. Rather than being presidential,
we now have reality TV Prez. (live in T's reality, or else.)
I'm mostly fear we'll have another four. Amy K. my only hope.

13 more years.

Don't taunt me. :^)
(We'll feed T KFC and he can't live that long.

GH

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 2:40:37 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:00:41 -0800 (PST), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 12:26:19 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:17:51 -0800 (PST), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 6:47:08 PM UTC-5, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump. It's not working.


Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....
Trump is loved here in 'Trump land' Western NY. It's like nothing I've
seen before. The Deli down the bottom of my hill sells Trump hats at
the check out.

Makes sense. In the culture (and financial) wars, T is on the side of
the working-class, not college indoctrinated, non-coastal folks. The
ones who keep us alive.
Yeah, if you come here and sit on a bar stool, you'll also
find a good dose of racism. (I'm thinking NFL at the moment.
blacks who earn a lot of money are hated.)
T knows just how to tweak his base. Rather than being presidential,
we now have reality TV Prez. (live in T's reality, or else.)
I'm mostly fear we'll have another four. Amy K. my only hope.

13 more years.

It's felt that long already.

And Trump is inept enough to get himself blown to shreds by some even more inept diplomacy than the stuff he has screwed up already.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[bitrex]

On 2/10/20 10:44 AM, DemonicTubes wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:08:10 PM UTC-7, Joe Gwinn wrote:
FYI. On the ongoing Climate Change debate, I recently ran across a
relevant opinion piece in the New York Times, originally published on
April 28, 2017.

.<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html

Brett Stephens moved mid-career from the Wall Street Journal to the
New York Times. This is his first article at the NYT. One assumes
that the NYT Editorial Board gave this maiden article the full
wire-brush treatment, and are satisfied with the result. Despite the
expectation that "heads will explode".

I plowed through the 1550 comments. A large number of people
complained about the article, and said that Stephens should be fired
or the like. A smaller number said that while they disagreed, they
were glad to see the other side of the debate published. Fewer said
that they agreed (this being very brave in the NYT community). The
most interesting comment was by "Grebulocities" in Illinois, posted
April 29, 2017: "I'm finishing up an MS in atmospheric sciences, and
this column is certainly correct. ...".

Also read the linked article written by Andrew Revkin; this is an
integral part of Stephens' article.

The problem with being so certain is not just exposing your hubris, but can cause some embarrassment:

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/the-telling-tale-of-glacier-national-parks-gone-by-2020-signs/

Never put a date on your doomsday predictions.

"But in truth the new signs are no more accurate than the old ones.
First, some of the glaciers have expanded, not shrunk, in the last decade."

Here's the data set you can check for yourself. Wow! 29 views! Must be
all those millions of skeptics in the world doing their homework on that
claim. Know what a vector digital data set is? Vectors are probably some
kind of communist plot if you ask me.

<https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/2015-glacier-margins-derived-from-2015-satellite-imagery-for-the-named-glaciers-of-glacier-nati>

<https://medium.com/radiant-earth-insights/ten-year-challenge-glacier-national-park-49dd5821b151>

"In 2013 he described an article by a fellow journalist, which attacked
the views of columnist Suzanne Moore, as giving her "such a seeing-to,
she'll be walking bow-legged for weeks." Delingpole later apologised."

Looks like the author has a history of retraction himself. What a
cuckservative won't even stand by his statements if a woman was
offended. Trump would piss on his face and the guy would enjoy it.
Executive editor for Breitbart London makes sense as a job, sure beats
learning any math or vectors or shit.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 10/02/2020 15:17, George Herold wrote:

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 6:47:08 PM UTC-5, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump. It's not working.

Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

Trump is loved here in 'Trump land' Western NY. It's like nothing I've
seen before. The Deli down the bottom of my hill sells Trump hats at
the check out.

George H.

Oh I didn't read the NY times article. There is much that is kinda 'broken'
in science that many on the left don't want to see.

It isn't particularly broken and the scientific method is ultimately
self correcting so that if someone makes a false claim it will be
discovered when someone else tries to do the same experiment again.

The only places where such mistakes don't get found are down dead ends
which are so dull that nobody ever bothers to try that route again.

Take peer-review as one problem. Peer review can operate as a gate keeper
for ideas, and not to get the 'best' science published.
GH

The number of times that has actually happened is incredibly rare.
Nature for instance once published an article by a guy who suggested
that sunspots were somewhat like the radial flames on a gas hob. The
reviewers decided that it was a plausible model so it got published. (it
was later proved incorrect but at the time it was just about possible)

Peer review normally only kills off stuff that is fundamentally flawed
or badly thought out. Usually reviewers make a few helpful suggestions
on how to improve a paper so that it will reach a wider audience. About
10% of stuff is given the benefit of the doubt and published even though
the peer review says it is borderline and will ultimately be disproved.

It is a fair heuristic that 10% of the peer reviewed literature is
flawed in some significant way. This can be due to anything from bad
proof reading to a correction made in proof that inverts the meaning of
a sentence. Even the odd famous paper has suffered that indignity.

The only example I can think of where peer review prevented a genuine
ground breaking discovery being published was poor old Belusov in the
former USSR who discovered the first self catalysed oscillating redox
reaction that broke all the rules as they were then known in 1951 and he
couldn't get it published. He never lived to see his reaction
resurrected and very fashionable after Zhabotinsky revisited it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov%E2%80%93Zhabotinsky_reaction

It didn't help that he was behind the iron curtain at the time. The
irony was that the mix of ingredients is so simple and reliable that the
thing can be done as a lab demo in any high school today.

This was a master stroke, really.

Trumps' politics are an old strain that's been around since the
Know-Nothing party.

For every complex problem there is at least one simple wrong answer.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

On 10/02/2020 17:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:17:51 -0800 (PST), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh I didn't read the NY times article. There is much that is kinda 'broken'
in science that many on the left don't want to see.
Take peer-review as one problem. Peer review can operate as a gate keeper
for ideas, and not to get the 'best' science published.
GH


Exactly. In some areas of study, having an unorthodox idea can be
career-ending. Peer review is one enforcement mechanism to suppress
genuinely new ideas. Of course, the more a science is subject to
experimental verification, the more tolerant it is of radical ideas.

Only if it is an unorthodox view that conflicts with one of the
conservation laws, flat Earth, alien abduction or psychic powers.

Extraordinary claims require *EXTRAORDINARY* proof.

Even then the odd senior physics researcher has survived being conned by
the likes of Uri Geller without too much damage to their conventional
research career. The amazing Randi designed experiments that were much
less inclined to to succumb to his "psychic powers" than those designed
by physicists. Physics is not used to experimental subjects that cheat.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 2/11/2020 5:09, Les Cargill wrote:

 Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/9/2020 1:47, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump.   It's not working.


Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Yes. But I think he clearly does not possess half the brains it takes
to mastermind what happened.

I think that's mostly undecidable. Nothing in his communication style
is designed to expose actual information. It's more like sleight-of-hand.

Perhaps you'd have had to see this in real life for it to make sense?
It's schematically described in David Mamet's "Glengarry Glen Ross", in
an intentionally obscure manner.

I've worked for a couple guys like that.

I am far from being close to his output as you are, just what hits
me through the media (mainly the BBC). So my perception may be wrong.
But I can see what you mean and I think this is what I have seen
in my more limited evaluation of him, too.

Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.


There is no puppeteer.

Not in the literal sense of course, nobody is - or could - be
micromanaging him.
Whether there is one or not can only be speculated of course; what
I think is that someone with long term (as opposed to mandated)
power has been helpful putting him there, probably having something
on him. Not unlike anybody else.... I expect this would be
the modus operandi of those who retain some level of control to
former colonies etc. Enforcing a couple of crucial decisions per
mandate would be plenty - and not necessarily bad for society.
But this is not even a conspiracy theory, just a hypothesis which
cannot be proven wrong - and it may well be that.

Dimiter

 

[bitrex]

On 2/10/20 7:05 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

He has common sense, a will to win, and luck.

Super smart people I admire have met with Trump privately.
They were blown away. They say the man's brilliant.

I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.

Easing obnoxious regs and lowering the marginal corporate tax
rate have re-ignited half the country (or more).

Cheers,
James Arthur

Imagine being so ignorant of the potential geopolitical/military
consequences of assassinating Soleimani that no theater missile defense
systems were moved into position around the targets in Iraq that Iran
would be most likely to target in a retaliatory strike.

A retaliation in that fashion was entirely predictable and Iranian
missiles being shot out of the sky making a massive PR-lose for the
Iranians would have been entirely predictable to the Iranians as well,
making their decision to launch a lot more difficult at the very least.

Instead US forces had no option but to watch as the missiles fell on
their heads and it was mostly by good fortune that nobody was killed,
though many were injured and Trump has tried to down-play the injuries.

Yep, total unawareness of cause-and-effect can appear like wisdom for a
while. Must be a great feeling to see that while our Saudi Arabian
friends get a missile defense system the US-based Iraqi forces got
_nothing_.

I'm sure there will be someone who will argue what a "grand strategist"
he is, allowing US troops to have missiles fall on them with no
fore-thought and no means of defense.

 

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 11:16:29 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 2/10/20 7:05 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

He has common sense, a will to win, and luck.

Super smart people I admire have met with Trump privately.
They were blown away. They say the man's brilliant.

I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.

Easing obnoxious regs and lowering the marginal corporate tax
rate have re-ignited half the country (or more).

Cheers,
James Arthur


Imagine being so ignorant of the potential geopolitical/military
consequences of assassinating Soleimani that no theater missile defense
systems were moved into position around the targets in Iraq that Iran
would be most likely to target in a retaliatory strike.

A retaliation in that fashion was entirely predictable and Iranian
missiles being shot out of the sky making a massive PR-lose for the
Iranians would have been entirely predictable to the Iranians as well,
making their decision to launch a lot more difficult at the very least.

Instead US forces had no option but to watch as the missiles fell on
their heads and it was mostly by good fortune that nobody was killed,
though many were injured and Trump has tried to down-play the injuries.

Yep, total unawareness of cause-and-effect can appear like wisdom for a
while. Must be a great feeling to see that while our Saudi Arabian
friends get a missile defense system the US-based Iraqi forces got
_nothing_.

I'm sure there will be someone who will argue what a "grand strategist"
he is, allowing US troops to have missiles fall on them with no
fore-thought and no means of defense.

Yeah, the idiot only saved a few thousand, or a few hundred thousands,
of lives. And changed the course of Persian history.






--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:14:10 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
wrote:

On 2/11/2020 5:09, Les Cargill wrote:
 Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/9/2020 1:47, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump.   It's not working.


Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Yes. But I think he clearly does not possess half the brains it takes
to mastermind what happened.

I think that's mostly undecidable. Nothing in his communication style
is designed to expose actual information. It's more like sleight-of-hand.

Perhaps you'd have had to see this in real life for it to make sense?
It's schematically described in David Mamet's "Glengarry Glen Ross", in
an intentionally obscure manner.

I've worked for a couple guys like that.

I am far from being close to his output as you are, just what hits
me through the media (mainly the BBC). So my perception may be wrong.
But I can see what you mean and I think this is what I have seen
in my more limited evaluation of him, too.


Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.


There is no puppeteer.

Not in the literal sense of course, nobody is - or could - be
micromanaging him.
Whether there is one or not can only be speculated of course; what
I think is that someone with long term (as opposed to mandated)
power has been helpful putting him there, probably having something
on him. Not unlike anybody else.... I expect this would be
the modus operandi of those who retain some level of control to
former colonies etc. Enforcing a couple of crucial decisions per
mandate would be plenty - and not necessarily bad for society.
But this is not even a conspiracy theory, just a hypothesis which
cannot be proven wrong - and it may well be that.

Dimiter

There is another, even worse conspiracy theory. Millions of flyover
state voters elected him because he's on their side.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 11:54:32 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 2/11/20 11:47 AM, bitrex wrote:

Yeah, the idiot only saved a few thousand, or a few hundred thousands,
of lives. And changed the course of Persian history.


Sheesh, why stop at hundreds of thousands. He probably saved a million
lives! Perhaps a billion...

"Since President Trump’s inauguration, the administration has vowed to
expand national and regional missile defense systems of every kind, and
Congress has supported these efforts. In fiscal year 2018, Congress
approved $11.5 billion for the Missile Defense Agency, an increase of
$3.6 billion, or 46 percent, from the Trump administration’s May 2017
initial budget request. The appropriation is the largest Congress has
ever provided for the agency after adjusting for inflation."

Then the one time in the past decade it has a real job to do and it
doesn't do a thing. Very impressive value for the money, here.


The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that re-positioning
theater missile defense would have presented an effective deterrent and
Iran wouldn't have launched missile strikes to begin with.

That is to say, the administration was glad to have US troops hit with
ballistic missiles in the hope that casualties would provide a pretext
for war. What other conclusion can one draw assuming it was not from
incompetence.

Malice or incompetence, take your pick.

No, those are your picks.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

[bitrex]

On 2/11/20 11:34 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 11:16:29 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 2/10/20 7:05 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

He has common sense, a will to win, and luck.

Super smart people I admire have met with Trump privately.
They were blown away. They say the man's brilliant.

I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.

Easing obnoxious regs and lowering the marginal corporate tax
rate have re-ignited half the country (or more).

Cheers,
James Arthur


Imagine being so ignorant of the potential geopolitical/military
consequences of assassinating Soleimani that no theater missile defense
systems were moved into position around the targets in Iraq that Iran
would be most likely to target in a retaliatory strike.

A retaliation in that fashion was entirely predictable and Iranian
missiles being shot out of the sky making a massive PR-lose for the
Iranians would have been entirely predictable to the Iranians as well,
making their decision to launch a lot more difficult at the very least.

Instead US forces had no option but to watch as the missiles fell on
their heads and it was mostly by good fortune that nobody was killed,
though many were injured and Trump has tried to down-play the injuries.

Yep, total unawareness of cause-and-effect can appear like wisdom for a
while. Must be a great feeling to see that while our Saudi Arabian
friends get a missile defense system the US-based Iraqi forces got
_nothing_.

I'm sure there will be someone who will argue what a "grand strategist"
he is, allowing US troops to have missiles fall on them with no
fore-thought and no means of defense.

Yeah, the idiot only saved a few thousand, or a few hundred thousands,
of lives. And changed the course of Persian history.

Sheesh, why stop at hundreds of thousands. He probably saved a million
lives! Perhaps a billion...

"Since President Trump’s inauguration, the administration has vowed to
expand national and regional missile defense systems of every kind, and
Congress has supported these efforts. In fiscal year 2018, Congress
approved $11.5 billion for the Missile Defense Agency, an increase of
$3.6 billion, or 46 percent, from the Trump administration’s May 2017
initial budget request. The appropriation is the largest Congress has
ever provided for the agency after adjusting for inflation."

Then the one time in the past decade it has a real job to do and it
doesn't do a thing. Very impressive value for the money, here.

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 2/11/2020 18:36, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:14:10 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/11/2020 5:09, Les Cargill wrote:
 Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/9/2020 1:47, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump.   It's not working.


Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Yes. But I think he clearly does not possess half the brains it takes
to mastermind what happened.

I think that's mostly undecidable. Nothing in his communication style
is designed to expose actual information. It's more like sleight-of-hand.

Perhaps you'd have had to see this in real life for it to make sense?
It's schematically described in David Mamet's "Glengarry Glen Ross", in
an intentionally obscure manner.

I've worked for a couple guys like that.

I am far from being close to his output as you are, just what hits
me through the media (mainly the BBC). So my perception may be wrong.
But I can see what you mean and I think this is what I have seen
in my more limited evaluation of him, too.


Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.


There is no puppeteer.

Not in the literal sense of course, nobody is - or could - be
micromanaging him.
Whether there is one or not can only be speculated of course; what
I think is that someone with long term (as opposed to mandated)
power has been helpful putting him there, probably having something
on him. Not unlike anybody else.... I expect this would be
the modus operandi of those who retain some level of control to
former colonies etc. Enforcing a couple of crucial decisions per
mandate would be plenty - and not necessarily bad for society.
But this is not even a conspiracy theory, just a hypothesis which
cannot be proven wrong - and it may well be that.

Dimiter

There is another, even worse conspiracy theory. Millions of flyover
state voters elected him because he's on their side.

This might be even a worse one. With todays media influence they'd elect
even a chimp telling them he is on their side.

 

[John Robertson]

On 2020/02/11 12:31 a.m., Martin Brown wrote:

On 10/02/2020 17:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:17:51 -0800 (PST), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh I didn't read the NY times article.  There is much that is kinda
'broken'
in science that many on the left don't want to see.
Take peer-review as one problem.  Peer review can operate as a gate
keeper
for ideas, and not to get the 'best' science published.
GH


Exactly. In some areas of study, having an unorthodox idea can be
career-ending. Peer review is one enforcement mechanism to suppress
genuinely new ideas. Of course, the more a science is subject to
experimental verification, the more tolerant it is of radical ideas.

Only if it is an unorthodox view that conflicts with one of the
conservation laws, flat Earth, alien abduction or psychic powers.

Extraordinary claims require *EXTRAORDINARY* proof.

Even then the odd senior physics researcher has survived being conned by
the likes of Uri Geller without too much damage to their conventional
research career. The amazing Randi designed experiments that were much
less inclined to to succumb to his "psychic powers" than those designed
by physicists. Physics is not used to experimental subjects that cheat.

James Randi and Johnny Carson. Use a magician to catch a magician (Uri
pretended that he wasn't one).

John :-#)#

 

[bitrex]

On 2/11/20 11:47 AM, bitrex wrote:

Yeah, the idiot only saved a few thousand, or a few hundred thousands,
of lives. And changed the course of Persian history.


Sheesh, why stop at hundreds of thousands. He probably saved a million
lives! Perhaps a billion...

"Since President Trump’s inauguration, the administration has vowed to
expand national and regional missile defense systems of every kind, and
Congress has supported these efforts. In fiscal year 2018, Congress
approved $11.5 billion for the Missile Defense Agency, an increase of
$3.6 billion, or 46 percent, from the Trump administration’s May 2017
initial budget request. The appropriation is the largest Congress has
ever provided for the agency after adjusting for inflation."

Then the one time in the past decade it has a real job to do and it
doesn't do a thing. Very impressive value for the money, here.

The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that re-positioning
theater missile defense would have presented an effective deterrent and
Iran wouldn't have launched missile strikes to begin with.

That is to say, the administration was glad to have US troops hit with
ballistic missiles in the hope that casualties would provide a pretext
for war. What other conclusion can one draw assuming it was not from
incompetence.

Malice or incompetence, take your pick.

 

[bitrex]

On 2/11/20 11:49 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

On 2/11/2020 18:36, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:14:10 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/11/2020 5:09, Les Cargill wrote:
   Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/9/2020 1:47, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump.   It's not working.


Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants,
he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Yes. But I think he clearly does not possess half the brains it takes
to mastermind what happened.

I think that's mostly undecidable. Nothing in his communication style
is designed to expose actual information. It's more like
sleight-of-hand.

Perhaps you'd have had to see this in real life for it to make sense?
It's schematically described in David Mamet's "Glengarry Glen Ross", in
an intentionally obscure manner.

I've worked for a couple guys like that.

I am far from being close to his output as you are, just what hits
me through the media (mainly the BBC). So my perception may be wrong.
But I can see what you mean and I think this is what I have seen
in my more limited evaluation of him, too.


Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.


There is no puppeteer.

Not in the literal sense of course, nobody is - or could - be
micromanaging him.
Whether there is one or not can only be speculated of course; what
I think is that someone with long term (as opposed to mandated)
power has been helpful putting him there, probably having something
on him. Not unlike anybody else.... I expect this would be
the modus operandi of those who retain some level of control to
former colonies etc. Enforcing a couple of crucial decisions per
mandate would be plenty - and not necessarily bad for society.
But this is not even a conspiracy theory, just a hypothesis which
cannot be proven wrong - and it may well be that.

Dimiter

There is another, even worse conspiracy theory. Millions of flyover
state voters elected him because he's on their side.





This might be even a worse one. With todays media influence they'd elect
even a chimp telling them he is on their side.

<https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2020/02/Screen-Shot-2020-02-06-at-10.15.20-AM-510x149.png>

What are the chances Donnie Trump Jr. has ever read a word of this
"Scripture" he speaks of?

Can't wait to see what the Trump presidential library is going to look
like. Will it be filled with thousands of books neither Trump or his
family and supporters have ever read, or just two books they've never
read the Bible and the art of the deal.

 

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:49:59 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
wrote:

On 2/11/2020 18:36, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:14:10 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/11/2020 5:09, Les Cargill wrote:
 Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/9/2020 1:47, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump.   It's not working.


Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Yes. But I think he clearly does not possess half the brains it takes
to mastermind what happened.

I think that's mostly undecidable. Nothing in his communication style
is designed to expose actual information. It's more like sleight-of-hand.

Perhaps you'd have had to see this in real life for it to make sense?
It's schematically described in David Mamet's "Glengarry Glen Ross", in
an intentionally obscure manner.

I've worked for a couple guys like that.

I am far from being close to his output as you are, just what hits
me through the media (mainly the BBC). So my perception may be wrong.
But I can see what you mean and I think this is what I have seen
in my more limited evaluation of him, too.


Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.


There is no puppeteer.

Not in the literal sense of course, nobody is - or could - be
micromanaging him.
Whether there is one or not can only be speculated of course; what
I think is that someone with long term (as opposed to mandated)
power has been helpful putting him there, probably having something
on him. Not unlike anybody else.... I expect this would be
the modus operandi of those who retain some level of control to
former colonies etc. Enforcing a couple of crucial decisions per
mandate would be plenty - and not necessarily bad for society.
But this is not even a conspiracy theory, just a hypothesis which
cannot be proven wrong - and it may well be that.

Dimiter

There is another, even worse conspiracy theory. Millions of flyover
state voters elected him because he's on their side.





This might be even a worse one. With todays media influence they'd elect
even a chimp telling them he is on their side.

95% of the US media was on Hillary's side. And the deplorable
uneducated flyover yokels noticed.

The Founders knew that the coastal urban consumers who made the laws
and owned the banks would out-vote and exploit the country hicks who
sent them their food and fuel and fabrics and liquor. So they built
nonlinearities into the system. Pretty smart dudes.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 2/11/2020 19:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:49:59 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/11/2020 18:36, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:14:10 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/11/2020 5:09, Les Cargill wrote:
 Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/9/2020 1:47, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump.   It's not working.


Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Yes. But I think he clearly does not possess half the brains it takes
to mastermind what happened.

I think that's mostly undecidable. Nothing in his communication style
is designed to expose actual information. It's more like sleight-of-hand.

Perhaps you'd have had to see this in real life for it to make sense?
It's schematically described in David Mamet's "Glengarry Glen Ross", in
an intentionally obscure manner.

I've worked for a couple guys like that.

I am far from being close to his output as you are, just what hits
me through the media (mainly the BBC). So my perception may be wrong.
But I can see what you mean and I think this is what I have seen
in my more limited evaluation of him, too.


Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.


There is no puppeteer.

Not in the literal sense of course, nobody is - or could - be
micromanaging him.
Whether there is one or not can only be speculated of course; what
I think is that someone with long term (as opposed to mandated)
power has been helpful putting him there, probably having something
on him. Not unlike anybody else.... I expect this would be
the modus operandi of those who retain some level of control to
former colonies etc. Enforcing a couple of crucial decisions per
mandate would be plenty - and not necessarily bad for society.
But this is not even a conspiracy theory, just a hypothesis which
cannot be proven wrong - and it may well be that.

Dimiter

There is another, even worse conspiracy theory. Millions of flyover
state voters elected him because he's on their side.





This might be even a worse one. With todays media influence they'd elect
even a chimp telling them he is on their side.

95% of the US media was on Hillary's side. And the deplorable
uneducated flyover yokels noticed.

I guess she was not smart enough to tell them she was on their side
then .

The Founders knew that the coastal urban consumers who made the laws
and owned the banks would out-vote and exploit the country hicks who
sent them their food and fuel and fabrics and liquor. So they built
nonlinearities into the system. Pretty smart dudes.

Now I understand the idea behind that complex system of voting, it had
never hit me directly.

Dimiter

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 08:31:16 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 10/02/2020 17:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:17:51 -0800 (PST), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh I didn't read the NY times article. There is much that is kinda 'broken'
in science that many on the left don't want to see.
Take peer-review as one problem. Peer review can operate as a gate keeper
for ideas, and not to get the 'best' science published.
GH


Exactly. In some areas of study, having an unorthodox idea can be
career-ending. Peer review is one enforcement mechanism to suppress
genuinely new ideas. Of course, the more a science is subject to
experimental verification, the more tolerant it is of radical ideas.

Only if it is an unorthodox view that conflicts with one of the
conservation laws, flat Earth, alien abduction or psychic powers.

Extraordinary claims require *EXTRAORDINARY* proof.

Even then the odd senior physics researcher has survived being conned by
the likes of Uri Geller without too much damage to their conventional
research career. The amazing Randi designed experiments that were much
less inclined to to succumb to his "psychic powers" than those designed
by physicists. Physics is not used to experimental subjects that cheat.

Unfortunately, in some so-called sciences, there is no proof.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[bitrex]

On 2/11/20 12:24 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:49:59 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/11/2020 18:36, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:14:10 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/11/2020 5:09, Les Cargill wrote:
 Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/9/2020 1:47, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump.   It's not working.


Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Yes. But I think he clearly does not possess half the brains it takes
to mastermind what happened.

I think that's mostly undecidable. Nothing in his communication style
is designed to expose actual information. It's more like sleight-of-hand.

Perhaps you'd have had to see this in real life for it to make sense?
It's schematically described in David Mamet's "Glengarry Glen Ross", in
an intentionally obscure manner.

I've worked for a couple guys like that.

I am far from being close to his output as you are, just what hits
me through the media (mainly the BBC). So my perception may be wrong.
But I can see what you mean and I think this is what I have seen
in my more limited evaluation of him, too.


Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.


There is no puppeteer.

Not in the literal sense of course, nobody is - or could - be
micromanaging him.
Whether there is one or not can only be speculated of course; what
I think is that someone with long term (as opposed to mandated)
power has been helpful putting him there, probably having something
on him. Not unlike anybody else.... I expect this would be
the modus operandi of those who retain some level of control to
former colonies etc. Enforcing a couple of crucial decisions per
mandate would be plenty - and not necessarily bad for society.
But this is not even a conspiracy theory, just a hypothesis which
cannot be proven wrong - and it may well be that.

Dimiter

There is another, even worse conspiracy theory. Millions of flyover
state voters elected him because he's on their side.





This might be even a worse one. With todays media influence they'd elect
even a chimp telling them he is on their side.

95% of the US media was on Hillary's side. And the deplorable
uneducated flyover yokels noticed.

The Founders knew that the coastal urban consumers who made the laws
and owned the banks would out-vote and exploit the country hicks who
sent them their food and fuel and fabrics and liquor. So they built
nonlinearities into the system. Pretty smart dudes.

Hate to break it to ya but the Founders lived in the original 13
colonies which were all coastal had no idea what a "coastal urban
consumer" was or that there would be any "country hicks" they were
supposedly exploiting.

One of their main concerns was a deep distrust of the "working class"
who they expected would regularly try to elect a true moron. Hence the
EC. Lol, you think the FFs were populists! First job George Washington
had was violently putting down seditious liquor-manufacturers, so much
for their deep respect for the salt of the Earth.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion>

They were pretty smart dudes but believing them to have the ability to
see decades or centuries into the future is a bit much, the Constitution
was a pragmatic document written mostly to address the main concerns of
its time.