chettt
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“The historical facts are counter intuitively just the opposite from Dr D’s assertion. Except for a 2% overall increase in suicides the mortality rate actually goes down during economic downturns with high unemployment. Great Depression and Great Recession being notable examples of studies done.”
I’ve heard this before and it has to be one of the worst counter arguments I’ve ever come across. Let’s extend it further and put everyone on permanent lockdown and just slide them food under their doors for the rest of their lives. That’ll drive that mortality rate even lower. Let’s not forget that the number one cause of death is living. A gilded cage is still a cage. Our lifespans are limited and the level of risk I’m willing to take to live it to what I consider the fullest should be my choice. The pity is that I have to make that choice using information I can’t trust.
Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don’t do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts don’t stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape
I’m still waiting…I’m still waiting…I’m still waiting…Talking Heads – Crosseyed and Painless
For all the math challenged…
1% of a billion is 10 million
1% of the world’s population is 77 million
1% of the 40% of the US population that might get the virus is 1.3 million
not to take anything away from the seriousness or the death potential of this virus but exaggerating the numbers doesn’t help one bit.Seems to me that it would be a lot easier to fudge the “infected” number than it would the “dead” number. I could easily see the infected number being 10, 20, even 50 times higher than reported but the dead number would be much harder to suppress. So maybe in the end the mortality rate 10 or 20 times less than we think today and this story just becomes the latest failed media driven apocalypse.
What is Putin up to? Something has to change in Russia…
Raul
You throw around this .5% efficiency number like it has some special meaning in summing up the stupidity of the human species. Like the species had a choice and just made the wrong one. I don’t understand what to think about this number. Should I be proud that my species was able to conceive and create such a contraption or should I somehow be ashamed of this accomplishment?
Before cars people rode horses and a horse had to be raised, fed and attended to while it grew into something useful to man. Now a man uses it to ride to town. Should I calculate the efficiency number of this horse technology and if I do, what does it mean? Was the development of horse and buggy technology an earlier bad choice made by my species?
Humans are natural being. We have evolved from smaller brained beings that don’t have the intellectual reasoning capacity to care about things like energy, waste and resource limitations. At our core we are still driven by nature and just like nature drives bacteria in a petri dish to multiply and expand until they run out of resources, humans are the same. This is what we do. This is what nature drives us to do. Any intellectual attempts to control or reverse these natural tendencies is doomed to failure. It’s not natural. Humans will continue to use our position at the top of the natural order to control and utilize all the resources available to us. We will fix the problems that we create when they absolutely have to be fixed. And when we run out of resources then, like the bacteria in the petri dish, we will collapse and die or we will use our technology to expand outside of earth proper and find more resources to utilize. It’s what we do.Finally Dr. D makes a statement that puts the whole 737 scare affair into it’s proper perspective. The 737 max is the latest iteration of an exceptionally safe and reliable airplane. The problem, as we all now know, was not the plane, not the heavy motors, not even the sensor; the problem was and is the fact that the control philosophy overriding the software development has morphed from one where the control system software was developed to service the pilot’s needs to one where the pilot is just considered a backup system.
I’d bet that the design team for the first generation 737 control system was headed by a control engineer to provide the pilot with information and assistance to make the flight as safe and comfortable as possible. Software development and coding would have been subordinate and focused on servicing the requirement of the control engineers. But over the last few decades things have changed. Sensors have gotten cheap and tiny. Computer processing has seen both exponential increases in power and decreases in size and cost. People figure that adding some additional code to an existing software package cost nothing except maybe a little programming time and some testing.
I’d bet that the MACS software upgrade was developed by some software engineer and approved by some manager with a Management/Software Design degree.I say this because the control logic used in this sub loop is a complete rookie mistake that no self respecting control engineer would ever make. The idea of a logic loop that uses a single point of failure to take complete control of critical control systems is absolutely ludicrous. Such a critical loop should at least have had it’s own warning light and a disable switch mounted directly underneath. The pilot would have easily recovered and reported the failed sensor upon landing.
Keep in mind that this new safety feature was implemented because a computer analysis determined that the plane had a slightly higher chance of stalling under certain circumstances. I don’t know of any reported instances where the system actually was needed and worked as planned. This was not a critical safety system. The pilot could have easily recovered by disabling the MACS. It does not require 3 sensors. 3 sensors would be overkill.Keep at it Raul. Jullian needs to stay visible and hypocrites need to be called out.
“Climate change and the jet stream”
and
“The little boy who cried wolf”How many more failed predictions of an ice free arctic passage must pass?
How many more climate models need to crash and burn?
How much more historical data need to be “adjusted”?
How many more suicidal walruses do we need to see jumping off cliffs?I guess the little boy was eventually eaten by the wolf but until I see them farming in Greenland again I just can’t seem to take it seriously anymore..
Hmmm Isn’t the use of climate reanalyser’s data just another form of cherry picking?
What an excellent piece of work. Thank you Dr D
• Antarctic Losing 500% More Ice A Year Than In 80s – NASA (Ind.)
“Between 2009 and 2017 it lost an average 252 gigatonnes a year. This has added 3.6mm per decade to sea levels, or around 14mm since 1979, the study shows.”
Hmmm… let’s do the math. At 3.6mm/decade that’s 36mm per century or about 1 1/2 inches per century. At 252 gigatonnes per year we will see an ice free Antarctica around the year 3100.
Don’t we have bigger issues to worry about?
• ‘No Existing Countermeasures’ To Russian Hypersonic Weapons – US Gov’t (RT)
This is a very frightening piece of news for the US.That is if it can be believed…
‘High-tech’ robot on Russian TV was man in suit: report
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/12/17/world/offbeat-world/high-tech-robot-russian-tv-man-suit-report/#.XBmb_2hKhaQWell I guess Kunstler couldn’t have been more wrong. Can’t wait to hear the new spin on the uppity black activist judge.
Trump foundation dissolves in disgrace. Could it be that we actually still have the remnants of a functional legal system? Nay, too much to hope for.
Dr. D, stop rewriting history. Noone in the financial world predicted a Trump victory would lead to a stock market crash. Very few predicted a Trump victory and the few that did bet heavily on a market rise the very next day.“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it…”
Think this might apply to the 90+% of climate scientists employed by tax hungry governments?If the IPCC isn’t the classic chicken little, the sky is falling story then I don’t know what is. For the most part their predictions have been wrong, wrong, wrong. A simple look at the more than 60 climate temperature models shows gross over overestimation. Theories are developed and then real world model are created to test the theories. Any sane scientist would conclude that there’s something wrong with the theory and that additional adjustments in the model are a waste of time. Now we’re being told that the experts have grossly UNDERestimated the effects of CO2 induced climate change and now we need an even more extreme reaction to save us from the worst effects and, by implication, touting the only possible solution to be a world government. Well color me skeptical.
(sorry I couldn’t figure out how to link the graph of the climate models)
After the outrageous abuse of power displayed by the Republicans toward Merrick Garland nomination it’s hard for me to point a disdainful finger at the Dems for their behavior. Frankly I think they’re completely justified in blocking any Republican nominee and I hope they’re successful and that they will take back the senate and stall the next SC appointment until after the 2020 election.
As to the current circus, let’s face it, it’s Clarence Thomas ver2.0. He said, she said and seemingly no way to prove it one way or the other. Tie goes to the accused on this point but maybe he displayed enough of his dickish temperament and political bias to disqualify him but probably not. Odds are he’ll be on the court and be our second SC justice with an “ * “ after his name.
Throughout this entire process there’s been one aspect that has consumed my thinking and that is “Lifetime Appointment”. I know that there’s a lot of smart people that believe that our current technological base civilization is primed for a major reset back to a simpler, less populated time but, what if the extreme doesn’t happen and we continue on our exponential growth in technology? Well BioTech is one area that I invest in and follow closely the emerging technologies and the ever increasing understanding of cellular biology and I’m quite certain that in the near future humans will live well past 150 and have their biological brains and bodies reset, restored and rejuvenated back to the equivalent of their healthy mid 30s state. Biological immortality may take a little longer but it also seems inevitable.
While it may be a little too late for judges like Ginsberg to take advantage of these new technologies, Kavanaugh is the prime age for the coming rejuvenation proceedures and could likely serve on the supreme court for 50, 60, 70 years or more. Does anybody really think that the founding fathers would approve?Sorry Arnold but that missile video looks pretty bogus to me.
I’m not going to bother with Infowars anymore. This may be the best place yet!
I keep reading that if the UK wants access to the single market it will have to accepts the four freedoms. Does the US trading deal with the EU include this requirement?
It would be kind to say that over the years Hansen’s predictions have been somewhat exaggerated. There has to be a limited number of times that you get to yell “THE SKY IS FALLING!”
Hansen’s scared me one time too many for me to take him seriously again.I like Steve Keen but really, don’t you think he’s had enough time and tries to explain the Aussie housing bubble? Seem to me the hole keeps getting bigger.
Thanks Nicole, it was a wonderful read. Part 4 was my favorite; really well done.
question…
Don’t you think that parts of the technology will be considered “too big to fail” and will be prioritized accordingly? Cell phones, email, gps?
And what do you think will happens to all that military tech?Does anyone, other than Tsipras, even believe that the first strategy exists?
Kumbaya Oh Lord, KumbayaNice job Nicole although you did seem out of place with this group.
You seemed to be the only one addressing reality as opposed to idealistic notion that the people of the world will see the error of their ways and come together choosing to live with less. The notion that you can “vote” not to collapse is just so cute but also just naive intellectual BS. For the most part people still ignore and/or dismiss your resource limitation argument and pretend that climate issues can simply be address by some global epiphany. My hope is that we will be lucky enough to at least get a benevolent dictator to rule over the other side of the eventual collapse.Hey Huck,
This ain’t Jeopardy. Why not just make your point?@Professor
“What can’t be paid back, won’t be.”
That’s not much of an answer. What if Texas leaves the union? What if CA breaks up into 5 states? I’ve seen no discussion about what happens to public debt under these scenarios. Maybe England and Wales should also leave the UK and leave Northern Ireland to pay off all the debt.
So if Scotland leaves they get to start fresh? With no debt? If that’s the case then England and Wales should also leave and let the Irish pay off all that national debt.
Seriously, how does the debt get divided?For me the surprise from Japan is the complete buffoonary being displayed in the reaction to the Fukushima accident. My impression of the Japanese prowess in science and technology was set in the late 80s when the country seemed unstoppable. I was absolutely sure that by this time a new breed of industrial robots would have completely contained the multitude of problems and would now be scouring every square inch of soil collecting all remaining contaminated. Boy did I miss that call.
I guess 25 years of depression can really take a toll on a nations phyche. There are just too many issues going on in Japan to hope for a soft outcome. A significant cultural revolution now seem inevitable.Assuming that the euro survives is one huge bet
European view? How civilized. More precisely it’s a “Why doesn’t Europe run the world?” point of view. The notion that future problems of resource scarcity, overpopulation and climate issues will be cordially work out between nation states is delusional. The planet gets smaller every year. And sure, I can see how sinister a one world government could potentially be but the task is not to dismiss the concept out of hand but to find a way to make it work.
Each year technology makes it easier and easier to destroy life on earth as we know it. A century ago no single or combined entity was capable of destroying the earth. How many single entities are capable of it now? How many more in 20 years?
Hoping that reason will prevail is certainly one strategy but I fear that rising that far above our human nature has long odds indeed.While you are a tad cynical yourself Raul, you do not start with the conclusions before you do the analysis. I appreciate that.
A review of past publications from LEAP2020 show their analysis to be primarily anti-american hyperbole and a poor predictor of future events. I only wish that the US were as cunningly effective at world domination as the folks at LEAP seem to think. Unfortunately it seems the priority for the US and everyone else is myopic self preservation. The world needs and will eventually have a world government. It’s the only way the big problems can possibly be addressed. The question in my mind is how do we get from here to there.How can this one sided rant masquerading as objective analysis be taken seriously? There is no master plan. I wish there were.
