SI
SI
discoversearch

 Strategies & Market Trends | The Financial Collapse of 2001 and Beyond


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: elmatador who wrote (87129)2/12/2012 8:14:52 PM
From: Oblivious
   of 107381
 
WW II was fought over oil. Japan and Germany wanted oil.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: dan62/12/2012 9:26:47 PM
   of 107381
 
for friend's of teotwawki --

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire by Morris Berman. A smart book that covers a lot of ground. The Bottom Line might be that every civilization is a "package deal," defined by the nature of the deal which contains both positive and negative elements. It sets us off on a certain trajectory early that allows the particular civilization to thrive but also contains the seeds of its own destruction because it is inevitably imbalanced and resistant to change.

Warning: It's not a pretty picture. While no one (or everyone) is blamed, it is a scenario that was a long time coming, going all the way back to the Founding Fathers who were less concerned about freedom and democracy than they were about getting rich!

Both thumbs up.

-d.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (87126)2/12/2012 10:23:59 PM
From: Joseph Silent
4 Recommendations   of 107381
 
You obviously didn't study anything involving causal relations, maths, science or logic at school.

I cannot help but smile at how you continue to sink like a bespectacled hippo in quicksand. :)

It would be both humorous and terribly pitiful for me to to tell you just what my education is in and what the level is, and what I may have accomplished .... and so I won't. Just know that while you were and are busy getting your cocktail-party-talk inspired Wiki education, I was and am doing something more rigorous.

I offered you another way. Tell us all precisely how you did the estimation. One who ""does not know math, logic, etc etc" does not ask for probability measures and great detail. I ask, waiting patiently. We can go into any depth you choose with numbers and science. No more fuzzy "feel good" talk about waves and energy and upside down Planck's constants.

Keeping it simple: tell us in some detail how you arrived at your probability estimate and I'll show you a clown masquerading as a sinking-hippo-genius. :)

Joseph

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Maurice Winn who wrote (87126)2/12/2012 10:33:21 PM
From: Joseph Silent
2 Recommendations   of 107381
 
Probability 101. You won't need to consult Kolmogorov. Or even Feller.


Event A is certain means P(A) = 1, except possibly on a set of measure zero.

To say "good odds" and "P(A) = 1" in the same breath suggests you have been napping by the car exhaust

in Coronation park for far, far too long.


Get a good book. Solve home-work problems. Take real tests. LEARN!

QUIT the interminable Wiki-inspired babbling! We know you type fast. SO WHAT?

:)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Joseph Silent who wrote (87141)2/12/2012 10:34:32 PM
From: Follies
   of 107381
 
What's your point?

Do you disagree with the statements? Do you think the eruption is not a certainty?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (4)

To: Follies who wrote (87143)2/12/2012 10:44:51 PM
From: RJA_
5 Recommendations   of 107381
 
>>What's your point?


JS is calling MQ on his word games.


MQ is dodging, twisting, throwing up smoke, clouds of dust, trying to disappear into same...


JS is not letting him loose, its put up or shut up...


Of course MQ will not shut up...


But in this case, he cannot put up either.


MQ is a bright guy, but IMHO his post are more sophistry than substance and he is being called on it.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: RJA_ who wrote (87144)2/12/2012 11:07:50 PM
From: Follies
5 Recommendations   of 107381
 
MQ makes more sense than JS, just MHO

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Follies who wrote (87143)2/12/2012 11:17:03 PM
From: Joseph Silent
2 Recommendations   of 107381
 
Do you disagree with the statements? Do you think the eruption is not a certainty?

Let's focus on the second: Do you think the eruption is not a certainty?

Here is the story.

A = {event that place X will erupt}

MQ, in his usual put-down style, attacked a simple post I made about karma. This is a subject he knows nothing about. Having pointed that out, and explaining why I could say, with probability 1, that the sun will rise tomorrow (without using science or technology), it became necessary to show that MQ has trouble even where science is concerned.

1. MQ says event A is highly likely, and P(A) = 1, in the same breath. Like MQ, one of those statements is redundant.

2. MQ has not shown us how he arrived at either clause.

3. MQ, apparently, can start anywhere and arrive anywhere. You can do this only if your mouth is larger than your head.

Now take the first: Do you disagree with the statements?

It is not my nature to agree or disagree. I do not attack people even when I know they are wrong, let alone toss around things I know little or nothing about. Now do you suppose MQ has any such constraints? :)

Whether place X erupts or not has nothing to do with how MQ decided it probably will and will in the same breath.


Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Follies who wrote (87145)2/12/2012 11:35:19 PM
From: Joseph Silent
4 Recommendations   of 107381
 
In one simple and honest statement you have deftly explained

why freedom and education are both invaluable, and for some the choice is not easy. In many ways, it does not matter ....... because honesty is more important than either.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Joseph Silent who wrote (87146)2/12/2012 11:45:58 PM
From: Follies
2 Recommendations   of 107381
 
>>It is not my nature to agree or disagree. I do not attack people even when I know they are wrong

That seems to be exactly what your nature is.

I don't get your point. MQ made two statements, one of which completely subsumes the other, and MQ admits to that.

You don't say whether you agree or disagree with the statements, that does appear to be your nature, yet you insist on Knowing how he arrived at either statement.

You are right that my beliefs about whether the sun will rise tomorrow have nothing to do with whether the sun will actually rise, but that doesn't change my belief in the slightest. Now you could argue that I haveNt explained how I came to that belief, and since I haven't and won't you can chose to believe the opposite, that the sun won't rise tomorrow. Since we live in parallel universes we may both be right.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.