Research Discussion: Boycott BP

Boycott BP
Posts: 17

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Trailer Dweller
2010-05-27 14:53:13 EST
Over 156,000 people have joined the Boycott BP site on Facebook. Hagar has
joined with other right wing Republican red neck trailer dwellers to start
is own site. It's called Nuke the Whales. Dick Cheney was the first to
join. George Bush commented by questioning wheter nukes would work in the
water. "Won't the fuse get wet?" he asked.



Hagar
2010-05-27 15:49:35 EST

"Trailer Dweller" <trailerdweller@charter.net> wrote in message
news:tczLn.28441$rU6.26487@newsfe10.iad...
> Over 156,000 people have joined the Boycott BP site on Facebook. Hagar
> has joined with other right wing Republican red neck trailer dwellers to
> start is own site. It's called Nuke the Whales. Dick Cheney was the
> first to join. George Bush commented by questioning wheter nukes would
> work in the water. "Won't the fuse get wet?" he asked.
>

We are boycotting Obama and his crew of failures, individuals
more useless than tits on a hog, but typically Liberal in their
limited mental capacity. And there you have it, you ignorant
"Morons of the Obamacalypse".
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.



Trailer Dweller
2010-05-27 15:55:26 EST

"Hagar" <hagen@sahm.name> wrote in message
news:Hv2dncdg15JMUWPWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Trailer Dweller" <trailerdweller@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:tczLn.28441$rU6.26487@newsfe10.iad...
>> Over 156,000 people have joined the Boycott BP site on Facebook. Hagar
>> has joined with other right wing Republican red neck trailer dwellers to
>> start is own site. It's called Nuke the Whales. Dick Cheney was the
>> first to join. George Bush commented by questioning wheter nukes would
>> work in the water. "Won't the fuse get wet?" he asked.
>>
>
> We are boycotting Obama and his crew of failures, individuals
> more useless than tits on a hog, but typically Liberal in their
> limited mental capacity. And there you have it, you ignorant
> "Morons of the Obamacalypse".
> Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.
>

Tell us, how does a cracker boycott a president. What, turning down those
invitations to State dinners?



Jake
2010-05-27 18:21:42 EST
On May 27, 2:49 pm, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
> "Trailer Dweller" <trailerdwel...@charter.net> wrote in message
>
> news:tczLn.28441$rU6.26487@newsfe10.iad...
>
> > Over 156,000 people have joined the Boycott BP site on Facebook.  Hagar
> > has joined with other right wing Republican red neck trailer dwellers to
> > start is own site.  It's called Nuke the Whales.  Dick Cheney was the
> > first to join.  George Bush commented by questioning wheter nukes would
> > work in the water.  "Won't the fuse get wet?" he asked.
>
> We are boycotting Obama and his crew of failures, individuals
> more useless than tits on a hog,
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Complete knowledge about the traits of male pigs and other details
that would interest only craKKKers, duly noted.
Jake.

Hagar
2010-05-27 21:50:55 EST

"Trailer Dweller" <trailerdweller@charter.net> wrote in message
news:P6ALn.4996$mj4.3434@newsfe08.iad...
>
> "Hagar" <hagen@sahm.name> wrote in message
> news:Hv2dncdg15JMUWPWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Trailer Dweller" <trailerdweller@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:tczLn.28441$rU6.26487@newsfe10.iad...
>>> Over 156,000 people have joined the Boycott BP site on Facebook. Hagar
>>> has joined with other right wing Republican red neck trailer dwellers to
>>> start is own site. It's called Nuke the Whales. Dick Cheney was the
>>> first to join. George Bush commented by questioning wheter nukes would
>>> work in the water. "Won't the fuse get wet?" he asked.
>>>
>>
>> We are boycotting Obama and his crew of failures, individuals
>> more useless than tits on a hog, but typically Liberal in their
>> limited mental capacity. And there you have it, you ignorant
>> "Morons of the Obamacalypse".
>> Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.
>>
>
> Tell us, how does a cracker boycott a president. What, turning down those
> invitations to State dinners?
>

I don't know if total dimwits like you notice it, but the Press (capital P,
once totally owned by brainless Liberals), previously known as the "Fifth
Column" have turned on the useless Nigger.
When that happens, your welfare card will be revoked come November,
when the winds of Politics change. Until then, enjoy displaying your
stupidity and total ignorance of anything that matters, you Liberal
NumbNutz.
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder ...



Trailer Dweller
2010-05-27 22:44:50 EST

"Hagar" <hagen@sahm,name> wrote in message
news:wKSdna_xwL3ivGLWnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Trailer Dweller" <trailerdweller@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:P6ALn.4996$mj4.3434@newsfe08.iad...
>>
>> "Hagar" <hagen@sahm.name> wrote in message
>> news:Hv2dncdg15JMUWPWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Trailer Dweller" <trailerdweller@charter.net> wrote in message
>>> news:tczLn.28441$rU6.26487@newsfe10.iad...
>>>> Over 156,000 people have joined the Boycott BP site on Facebook. Hagar
>>>> has joined with other right wing Republican red neck trailer dwellers
>>>> to start is own site. It's called Nuke the Whales. Dick Cheney was
>>>> the first to join. George Bush commented by questioning wheter nukes
>>>> would work in the water. "Won't the fuse get wet?" he asked.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We are boycotting Obama and his crew of failures, individuals
>>> more useless than tits on a hog, but typically Liberal in their
>>> limited mental capacity. And there you have it, you ignorant
>>> "Morons of the Obamacalypse".
>>> Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.
>>>
>>
>> Tell us, how does a cracker boycott a president. What, turning down
>> those invitations to State dinners?
>>
>
> I don't know if total dimwits like you notice it, but the Press (capital
> P,
> once totally owned by brainless Liberals), previously known as the "Fifth
> Column" have turned on the useless Nigger.
> When that happens, your welfare card will be revoked come November,
> when the winds of Politics change. Until then, enjoy displaying your
> stupidity and total ignorance of anything that matters, you Liberal
> NumbNutz.
> Liberalism is a Mental Disorder ...


Tell us again - what is your plan to deal with the Gulf gusher?



Hagar
2010-05-28 08:35:42 EST

"Trailer Dweller" <trailerdweller@charter.net> wrote in message
news:D6GLn.23197$mi.8086@newsfe01.iad...
>
> "Hagar" <hagen@sahm,name> wrote in message
> news:wKSdna_xwL3ivGLWnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Trailer Dweller" <trailerdweller@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:P6ALn.4996$mj4.3434@newsfe08.iad...
>>>
>>> "Hagar" <hagen@sahm.name> wrote in message
>>> news:Hv2dncdg15JMUWPWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Trailer Dweller" <trailerdweller@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:tczLn.28441$rU6.26487@newsfe10.iad...
>>>>> Over 156,000 people have joined the Boycott BP site on Facebook.
>>>>> Hagar has joined with other right wing Republican red neck trailer
>>>>> dwellers to start is own site. It's called Nuke the Whales. Dick
>>>>> Cheney was the first to join. George Bush commented by questioning
>>>>> wheter nukes would work in the water. "Won't the fuse get wet?" he
>>>>> asked.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are boycotting Obama and his crew of failures, individuals
>>>> more useless than tits on a hog, but typically Liberal in their
>>>> limited mental capacity. And there you have it, you ignorant
>>>> "Morons of the Obamacalypse".
>>>> Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Tell us, how does a cracker boycott a president. What, turning down
>>> those invitations to State dinners?
>>>
>>
>> I don't know if total dimwits like you notice it, but the Press (capital
>> P,
>> once totally owned by brainless Liberals), previously known as the "Fifth
>> Column" have turned on the useless Nigger.
>> When that happens, your welfare card will be revoked come November,
>> when the winds of Politics change. Until then, enjoy displaying your
>> stupidity and total ignorance of anything that matters, you Liberal
>> NumbNutz.
>> Liberalism is a Mental Disorder ...
>
>
> Tell us again - what is your plan to deal with the Gulf gusher?
>
Since it is on Federal Waters, as it were, it is entirely Obama's gusher.
You crucified Bush for taking 4 days to get to the Gulf coast after
Katrina ... the Anointed one is still in California, beating the fund raiser
drums for that moron Boxer and apparently doesn't seem to be the least
bit concerned about his "gusher". But, I can explain that: Liberalism is a
Mental Disorder and afflict all Democrats, from the Messiah down to the
bottom of the totem pole to total ignoramuses like yourself.



Spudnik
2010-05-28 23:20:35 EST
it's just oil, which is biomass of unknown C14/C12 dating
(til they release the Official Age in Days .-)

read in the paper, one day, that the guestimate
on the natural seepage of oil in the Gulf,
is about one Exxon Valdez per annum, BUT
that is while we're pumping like crazy, man.
(I mean, I'm pogoing, dood, and They are pumping.)

no similar guestimate have I read,
of the Redondo Seep, but I'm sure that the Gabrielenos etc.
have some kind of lore (search on "bitumen," but
googol it at your own risk; "when you googol it,
We know it (TM)").

thusNso:
yes, but "no communication FTL" is "not spooky." formally,
there is a proof that (mathematical) induction is one-
to-one with deduction; thus, no hypothesis ca be made,
merely by induction. what is unrealistic about not looking
at Schroedinger's cat?... that could save you some problem,
like changing the litter-box. (anyway, that was most
of the "point" of his cat: the "problem" is resolved,
by opening the box & looking, or smelling.)

there is such a tremendous variation in quality
of sci.am., dealing with QM and cosmology Pop Sci,
it is hardly worth scanning the cartoons; stick with Gardener (RIP, in
reprint).
the more serious you become with it, the more likely that
you'll become the "exotic matter to make an EPR bridge" --
with negative mass.

anyway, what is "arbitrary" about a phase-factor?... Schroedinger's
equation
gives real parameters & pictures, where to find the electron; but,
you can't then measure one, without affecting another parameter
of a pair -- aren't there as many of those, as you can
set-up mathematically & instrumentally?

what is rarely said in Sci.Am. articles about q.teleportation e.g.,
is that such a transformation must conform, more or less, to E=mcc
-- "sorry, we couldn't make a copy of you, two."

> (a) realism; (b) induction works (science); (c) Einstein separability
> I think realism implies that, for any axis of measurement, a proton
> is either spin up or spin down (even if there is no measurement).
> It seems to me that realism isn't testable.

> There could be many EPR-type thought experiments.

thusNso:
thank you, The Maetherwocky!

> > check-out Alfven's plasma physics/cosmology.
> That is not to say I think a photon travels as a quantum of mæther,
> just that it would still be considered to be massless because it would
> be a quantum of mæther traveling through the mæther.

thusNso:
yeah; on the net, no-one knows if you're a poesy-talking dog,
unless you tell them.
> The fierce book that falls upon the shoulder
> bringing the weight that stays with reminisce
> the present to the future like a binding scroll
> to carry is to wrap the tattered edges tightly
> in sympathy that we ourselves are frayed with age
> we look upon the written lightly; knowing we are also.
> automutt.deviantart.com/

thusNso:
per my usual, I jumped into the middle of the article, so
I probably missed an earlier statement about "the value
of polar amplification." well, there has been a very long-
running assumption, dumped into GCMs, that the poles
would warm more than tropics, with such probably transient
effects like floating ice-cover in the Arctic, taken as totems.

the problem is with Ahrrenius's 1896 "glass house," and the lack
of any common-sense model of an ordinary one,
at a particular lattitude (but, he didn't win the first Nobel
in a category for that, any way .-)... I mean,
insolation is completely differential from equator to poles,
taking as the norm "noon on the equinoix," from nothing
at the poles, to something at the equator.

> These techniques of course, make some assumptions. Firstly, that the
> spatio-temporal pattern associated with a particular forcing is
> reasonably accurate (though the magnitude of the pattern can be too
> large or small without causing a problem). To a large extent this is the
> case – the stratospheric cooling/tropospheric warming pattern associated
> with CO2 increases is well understood, as are the qualitative land vs
> ocean/Northern vs. southern/Arctic amplification features. The exact
> value of polar amplification though is quite uncertain, though this
> affects all the response patterns and so is not a crucial factor. More
> problematic are results that indicate that specific forcings might
> impact existing regional patterns of variability, like the Arctic
> Oscillation or El Niño. In those cases, clearly distinguishing internal
> natural variability from the forced change ...
>
> don't read more »

thusNso:
that seems rather unlikely, because
"orthogonal Hilbert dimensions" etc. are rather abstract. on the
other hand,
there is nothing arbitrary about 11-dim. objects in W-theory (meaning,
What ever), if you consider that no-one bothers to debunk or
deny Kaluza's 5D coordination of Maxwell's spacetime stuff (never
mind,
what Klein decided it "looked like," or Minkowski's slogan about
time .-)
> Or one could define a consistent set of mutually orthogonal dimensions
> with length, time, and momentum, and mass is just some more-or-less

thusNso:
although global warming is almost entirely a)
computerized simulacra, and b)
very selective reporting, it seems that
the effects we have on landscapes & atmosphere are much larger
than could be accounted for, merely by measuring the gasses
that are the end result (agricultural turnover of CO2 is much greater
than that from cars or electricity e.g.; there may have been no jet
stream,
before the ivention of jets e.g.).
water vapor is far & away the greatest "glass house gas," yet CO2
is the one
that is not presewnt in three or four phases in the background, and is
#2 (also,
as John Muir dyscovered, you can be nearly smothered by it,
just by digging a 40' well for your grumpy dad-unit, by hand .-)
so, stop Waxman's capNtrade "Last Bailout of W.Street and the City
of L.;"
institute a tiny, adjustable tax on carbon,instead of "free trade,
free beer, free dumb."
a combination of nuclear & solar etc. in space,
might alleviate some of the needs in here (with or without the
Satellevator Synchrogeos,
which seems totally unworkable, with or without graphenes).

thusNso:
well, the textbook method is quite questionable, iff
you have access to the original monographs of the dyscoverers. but,
what I was going to type, just now, is that *mathematica* is not a
program
from the Wolframites ("yo, my daddy dyscovered an element!"), but
it is four subjects (*quadrivium* in Latin .-)... if Timmy wants
to pretend that he can grok it all, de novo,
it might take a while.

> The response is in any basic textbook.

thusNso:
I was reading one of Brown's books, and he is pretty-much
in the officious opinions of the Second Church of England, Newton,
about the "separation of science & religion," the idolization
of Galileo (as in, Galileo started the Illuminati,
sheesh, the background to the one where he relays
the officially unofficial Anglican doctrine
about the Chosen (British) People. well-paced, though.

> religion. It is fairly clear to me that progress will not lay in the
> direction of negating time http://bandtechnology.com

thusNso:
if the proofs of Bell's inequalities are interpreted
to mean that EPR were wrong, then you *should* transmit info
faster than lightwaves. a lot of the formalistic "paradox" goes
by the wauyside, by not enlisting the rock o'light
to impart the "momentum" to the atoms, electromagnetically. maybe,
the confusion is not helped, that EPR et al were wedded
to that "photon" being a particle. well, if
there's is only one thing that can't be a particle
-- except in some equatiopnal form with momentum --
it is waves of light in space -- not Pascal's Plenum!
never much cared for stuff from Templeton Prize Pop Sci,
kind of an Anglican thing, in Philadelphia, as I recall.
> For one thing, there's an arbitrary phase factor exp(i*theta)
> I think. Rather, it's a probabilistic theory tool.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/mar/17/templeton-quantum-...

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

Bert
2010-05-29 08:03:27 EST
On May 28, 11:20 pm, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> it's just oil, which is biomass of unknown C14/C12 dating
> (til they release the Official Age in Days .-)
>
> read in the paper, one day, that the guestimate
> on the natural seepage of oil in the Gulf,
> is about one Exxon Valdez per annum, BUT
> that is while we're pumping like crazy, man.
> (I mean, I'm pogoing, dood, and They are pumping.)
>
> no similar guestimate have I read,
> of the Redondo Seep, but I'm sure that the Gabrielenos etc.
> have some kind of lore (search on "bitumen," but
> googol it at your own risk; "when you googol it,
> We know it (TM)").
>
> thusNso:
> yes, but "no communication FTL" is "not spooky."  formally,
> there is a proof that (mathematical) induction is one-
> to-one with deduction; thus, no hypothesis ca be made,
> merely by induction.  what is unrealistic about not looking
> at Schroedinger's cat?...  that could save you some problem,
> like changing the litter-box.  (anyway, that was most
> of the "point" of his cat: the "problem" is resolved,
> by opening the box & looking, or smelling.)
>
> there is such a tremendous variation in quality
> of sci.am., dealing with QM and cosmology Pop Sci,
> it is hardly worth scanning the cartoons; stick with Gardener (RIP, in
> reprint).
> the more serious you become with it, the more likely that
> you'll become the "exotic matter to make an EPR bridge" --
> with negative mass.
>
> anyway, what is "arbitrary" about a phase-factor?...  Schroedinger's
> equation
> gives real parameters & pictures, where to find the electron; but,
> you can't then measure one, without affecting another parameter
> of a pair -- aren't there as many of those, as you can
> set-up mathematically & instrumentally?
>
> what is rarely said in Sci.Am. articles about q.teleportation e.g.,
> is that such a transformation must conform, more or less, to E=mcc
> -- "sorry, we couldn't make a copy of you, two."
>
> > (a) realism; (b) induction works (science); (c) Einstein separability
> > I think realism implies that, for any axis of measurement, a proton
> > is either spin up or spin down (even if there is no measurement).
> > It seems to me that realism isn't testable.
> > There could be many EPR-type thought experiments.
>
> thusNso:
> thank you, The Maetherwocky!
>
> > > check-out Alfven's plasma physics/cosmology.
> > That is not to say I think a photon travels as a quantum of mæther,
> > just that it would still be considered to be massless because it would
> > be a quantum of mæther traveling through the mæther.
>
> thusNso:
> yeah; on the net, no-one knows if you're a poesy-talking dog,
> unless you tell them.
>
> > The fierce book that falls upon the shoulder
> > bringing the weight that stays with reminisce
> > the present to the future like a binding scroll
> > to carry is to wrap the tattered edges tightly
> > in sympathy that we ourselves are frayed with age
> > we look upon the written lightly; knowing we are also.
> > automutt.deviantart.com/
>
> thusNso:
> per my usual, I jumped into the middle of the article, so
> I probably missed an earlier statement about "the value
> of polar amplification."  well, there has been a very long-
> running assumption, dumped into GCMs, that the poles
> would warm more than tropics, with such probably transient
> effects like floating ice-cover in the Arctic, taken as totems.
>
> the problem is with Ahrrenius's 1896  "glass house," and the lack
> of any common-sense model of an ordinary one,
> at a particular lattitude (but, he didn't win the first Nobel
> in a category for that, any way .-)...  I mean,
> insolation is completely differential from equator to poles,
> taking as the norm "noon on the equinoix," from nothing
> at the poles, to something at the equator.
>
> > These techniques of course, make some assumptions. Firstly, that the
> > spatio-temporal pattern associated with a particular forcing is
> > reasonably accurate (though the magnitude of the pattern can be too
> > large or small without causing a problem). To a large extent this is the
> > case – the stratospheric cooling/tropospheric warming pattern associated
> > with CO2 increases is well understood, as are the qualitative land vs
> > ocean/Northern vs. southern/Arctic amplification features. The exact
> > value of polar amplification though is quite uncertain, though this
> > affects all the response patterns and so is not a crucial factor. More
> > problematic are results that indicate that specific forcings might
> > impact existing regional patterns of variability, like the Arctic
> > Oscillation or El Niño. In those cases, clearly distinguishing internal
> > natural variability from the forced change ...
>
> > don't read more »
>
> thusNso:
> that seems rather unlikely, because
> "orthogonal Hilbert dimensions" etc. are rather abstract.  on the
> other hand,
> there is nothing arbitrary about 11-dim. objects in W-theory (meaning,
> What ever), if you consider that no-one bothers to debunk or
> deny Kaluza's 5D coordination of Maxwell's spacetime stuff (never
> mind,
> what Klein decided it "looked like," or Minkowski's slogan about
> time .-)
>
> > Or one could define a consistent set of mutually orthogonal dimensions
> > with length, time, and momentum, and mass is just some more-or-less
>
> thusNso:
> although global warming is almost entirely a)
> computerized simulacra, and b)
> very selective reporting, it seems that
> the effects we have on landscapes & atmosphere are much larger
> than could be accounted for, merely by measuring the gasses
> that are the end result (agricultural turnover of CO2 is much greater
> than that from cars or electricity e.g.; there may have been no jet
> stream,
> before the ivention of jets e.g.).
>     water vapor is far & away the greatest "glass house gas," yet CO2
> is the one
> that is not presewnt in three or four phases in the background, and is
> #2 (also,
> as John Muir dyscovered, you can be nearly smothered by it,
> just by digging a 40' well for your grumpy dad-unit, by hand .-)
>     so, stop Waxman's capNtrade "Last Bailout of W.Street and the City
> of L.;"
> institute a tiny, adjustable tax on carbon,instead of "free trade,
> free beer, free dumb."
>     a combination of nuclear & solar etc. in space,
> might alleviate some of the needs in here (with or without the
> Satellevator Synchrogeos,
> which seems totally unworkable, with or without graphenes).
>
> thusNso:
> well, the textbook method is quite questionable, iff
> you have access to the original monographs of the dyscoverers.  but,
> what I was going to type, just now, is that *mathematica* is not a
> program
> from the Wolframites ("yo, my daddy dyscovered an element!"), but
> it is four subjects (*quadrivium* in Latin .-)...  if Timmy wants
> to pretend that he can grok it all, de novo,
> it might take a while.
>
> > The response is in any basic textbook.
>
> thusNso:
> I was reading one of Brown's books, and he is pretty-much
> in the officious opinions of the Second Church of England, Newton,
> about the "separation of science & religion," the idolization
> of Galileo (as in, Galileo started the Illuminati,
> sheesh, the background to the one where he relays
> the officially unofficial Anglican doctrine
> about the Chosen (British) People.  well-paced, though.
>
> > religion. It is fairly clear to me that progress will not lay in the
> > direction of negating time        http://bandtechnology.com
>
> thusNso:
> if the proofs of Bell's inequalities are interpreted
> to mean that EPR were wrong, then you *should* transmit info
> faster than lightwaves.  a lot of the formalistic "paradox" goes
> by the wauyside, by not enlisting the rock o'light
> to impart the "momentum" to the atoms, electromagnetically.  maybe,
> the confusion is not helped, that EPR et al were wedded
> to that "photon" being a particle.  well, if
> there's is only one thing that can't be a particle
> -- except in some equatiopnal form with momentum --
> it is waves of light in space -- not Pascal's Plenum!
>     never much cared for stuff from Templeton Prize Pop Sci,
> kind of an Anglican thing, in Philadelphia, as I recall.> For one thing, there's an arbitrary phase factor exp(i*theta)
> > I think.  Rather, it's a probabilistic theory tool.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/mar/17/templeton-quantum-...
>
> --Light: A History!http://wlym.com

Boycotting BP is like not buying at Walmart. They are two big. Best to
keep in mind 7 million families were thrown on the streets and the
banks that did this got 200 billion from the USA treasury with no
strings attached. Get the picture TreBert

Double-A
2010-05-29 13:47:06 EST
On May 29, 5:03 am, bert <herbertglazie...@msn.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 11:20 pm, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > it's just oil, which is biomass of unknown C14/C12 dating
> > (til they release the Official Age in Days .-)
>
> > read in the paper, one day, that the guestimate
> > on the natural seepage of oil in the Gulf,
> > is about one Exxon Valdez per annum, BUT
> > that is while we're pumping like crazy, man.
> > (I mean, I'm pogoing, dood, and They are pumping.)
>
> > no similar guestimate have I read,
> > of the Redondo Seep, but I'm sure that the Gabrielenos etc.
> > have some kind of lore (search on "bitumen," but
> > googol it at your own risk; "when you googol it,
> > We know it (TM)").
>
> > thusNso:
> > yes, but "no communication FTL" is "not spooky."  formally,
> > there is a proof that (mathematical) induction is one-
> > to-one with deduction; thus, no hypothesis ca be made,
> > merely by induction.  what is unrealistic about not looking
> > at Schroedinger's cat?...  that could save you some problem,
> > like changing the litter-box.  (anyway, that was most
> > of the "point" of his cat: the "problem" is resolved,
> > by opening the box & looking, or smelling.)
>
> > there is such a tremendous variation in quality
> > of sci.am., dealing with QM and cosmology Pop Sci,
> > it is hardly worth scanning the cartoons; stick with Gardener (RIP, in
> > reprint).
> > the more serious you become with it, the more likely that
> > you'll become the "exotic matter to make an EPR bridge" --
> > with negative mass.
>
> > anyway, what is "arbitrary" about a phase-factor?...  Schroedinger's
> > equation
> > gives real parameters & pictures, where to find the electron; but,
> > you can't then measure one, without affecting another parameter
> > of a pair -- aren't there as many of those, as you can
> > set-up mathematically & instrumentally?
>
> > what is rarely said in Sci.Am. articles about q.teleportation e.g.,
> > is that such a transformation must conform, more or less, to E=mcc
> > -- "sorry, we couldn't make a copy of you, two."
>
> > > (a) realism; (b) induction works (science); (c) Einstein separability
> > > I think realism implies that, for any axis of measurement, a proton
> > > is either spin up or spin down (even if there is no measurement).
> > > It seems to me that realism isn't testable.
> > > There could be many EPR-type thought experiments.
>
> > thusNso:
> > thank you, The Maetherwocky!
>
> > > > check-out Alfven's plasma physics/cosmology.
> > > That is not to say I think a photon travels as a quantum of mæther,
> > > just that it would still be considered to be massless because it would
> > > be a quantum of mæther traveling through the mæther.
>
> > thusNso:
> > yeah; on the net, no-one knows if you're a poesy-talking dog,
> > unless you tell them.
>
> > > The fierce book that falls upon the shoulder
> > > bringing the weight that stays with reminisce
> > > the present to the future like a binding scroll
> > > to carry is to wrap the tattered edges tightly
> > > in sympathy that we ourselves are frayed with age
> > > we look upon the written lightly; knowing we are also.
> > > automutt.deviantart.com/
>
> > thusNso:
> > per my usual, I jumped into the middle of the article, so
> > I probably missed an earlier statement about "the value
> > of polar amplification."  well, there has been a very long-
> > running assumption, dumped into GCMs, that the poles
> > would warm more than tropics, with such probably transient
> > effects like floating ice-cover in the Arctic, taken as totems.
>
> > the problem is with Ahrrenius's 1896  "glass house," and the lack
> > of any common-sense model of an ordinary one,
> > at a particular lattitude (but, he didn't win the first Nobel
> > in a category for that, any way .-)...  I mean,
> > insolation is completely differential from equator to poles,
> > taking as the norm "noon on the equinoix," from nothing
> > at the poles, to something at the equator.
>
> > > These techniques of course, make some assumptions. Firstly, that the
> > > spatio-temporal pattern associated with a particular forcing is
> > > reasonably accurate (though the magnitude of the pattern can be too
> > > large or small without causing a problem). To a large extent this is the
> > > case – the stratospheric cooling/tropospheric warming pattern associated
> > > with CO2 increases is well understood, as are the qualitative land vs
> > > ocean/Northern vs. southern/Arctic amplification features. The exact
> > > value of polar amplification though is quite uncertain, though this
> > > affects all the response patterns and so is not a crucial factor. More
> > > problematic are results that indicate that specific forcings might
> > > impact existing regional patterns of variability, like the Arctic
> > > Oscillation or El Niño. In those cases, clearly distinguishing internal
> > > natural variability from the forced change ...
>
> > > don't read more »
>
> > thusNso:
> > that seems rather unlikely, because
> > "orthogonal Hilbert dimensions" etc. are rather abstract.  on the
> > other hand,
> > there is nothing arbitrary about 11-dim. objects in W-theory (meaning,
> > What ever), if you consider that no-one bothers to debunk or
> > deny Kaluza's 5D coordination of Maxwell's spacetime stuff (never
> > mind,
> > what Klein decided it "looked like," or Minkowski's slogan about
> > time .-)
>
> > > Or one could define a consistent set of mutually orthogonal dimensions
> > > with length, time, and momentum, and mass is just some more-or-less
>
> > thusNso:
> > although global warming is almost entirely a)
> > computerized simulacra, and b)
> > very selective reporting, it seems that
> > the effects we have on landscapes & atmosphere are much larger
> > than could be accounted for, merely by measuring the gasses
> > that are the end result (agricultural turnover of CO2 is much greater
> > than that from cars or electricity e.g.; there may have been no jet
> > stream,
> > before the ivention of jets e.g.).
> >     water vapor is far & away the greatest "glass house gas," yet CO2
> > is the one
> > that is not presewnt in three or four phases in the background, and is
> > #2 (also,
> > as John Muir dyscovered, you can be nearly smothered by it,
> > just by digging a 40' well for your grumpy dad-unit, by hand .-)
> >     so, stop Waxman's capNtrade "Last Bailout of W.Street and the City
> > of L.;"
> > institute a tiny, adjustable tax on carbon,instead of "free trade,
> > free beer, free dumb."
> >     a combination of nuclear & solar etc. in space,
> > might alleviate some of the needs in here (with or without the
> > Satellevator Synchrogeos,
> > which seems totally unworkable, with or without graphenes).
>
> > thusNso:
> > well, the textbook method is quite questionable, iff
> > you have access to the original monographs of the dyscoverers.  but,
> > what I was going to type, just now, is that *mathematica* is not a
> > program
> > from the Wolframites ("yo, my daddy dyscovered an element!"), but
> > it is four subjects (*quadrivium* in Latin .-)...  if Timmy wants
> > to pretend that he can grok it all, de novo,
> > it might take a while.
>
> > > The response is in any basic textbook.
>
> > thusNso:
> > I was reading one of Brown's books, and he is pretty-much
> > in the officious opinions of the Second Church of England, Newton,
> > about the "separation of science & religion," the idolization
> > of Galileo (as in, Galileo started the Illuminati,
> > sheesh, the background to the one where he relays
> > the officially unofficial Anglican doctrine
> > about the Chosen (British) People.  well-paced, though.
>
> > > religion. It is fairly clear to me that progress will not lay in the
> > > direction of negating time        http://bandtechnology.com
>
> > thusNso:
> > if the proofs of Bell's inequalities are interpreted
> > to mean that EPR were wrong, then you *should* transmit info
> > faster than lightwaves.  a lot of the formalistic "paradox" goes
> > by the wauyside, by not enlisting the rock o'light
> > to impart the "momentum" to the atoms, electromagnetically.  maybe,
> > the confusion is not helped, that EPR et al were wedded
> > to that "photon" being a particle.  well, if
> > there's is only one thing that can't be a particle
> > -- except in some equatiopnal form with momentum --
> > it is waves of light in space -- not Pascal's Plenum!
> >     never much cared for stuff from Templeton Prize Pop Sci,
> > kind of an Anglican thing, in Philadelphia, as I recall.> For one thing, there's an arbitrary phase factor exp(i*theta)
> > > I think.  Rather, it's a probabilistic theory tool.
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/mar/17/templeton-quantum-...
>
> > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com
>
> Boycotting BP is like not buying at Walmart. They are two big. Best to
> keep in mind 7 million families were thrown on the streets and the
> banks that did this got 200 billion from the USA treasury with no
> strings attached.  Get the picture   TreBert


Here in Oregon, we are making Wal-Mart PAY!

Wal-Mart sets aside up to $4M to settle Oregon class-action!

"Wal-Mart Stores Inc. agreed to a settlement this week that will
provide as much as $4 million to 28,000 of its former employees in
Oregon. The class-action lawsuit, litigated for nearly five years,
accused the world's largest retailer of violating Oregon's wage and
hour laws. The suit, a merger of two earlier lawsuits, claimed that
the Arkansas-based company didn't pay -- in a timely fashion or at
all
-- wages, overtime or earned vacation owed to employees who had left
the company."

We can make BP PAY too!

Double-A

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron