"The troll's other bizarre (and very racist) conclusion is that poverty makes black people want to kill white people."
Yep, stupid not blind. I made no such assumption; I drew no such conclusion. Didn't happen. You imagined it up--that's gotta go hand-in-hand with stupid rather than blind.
And, before you quote the ‘This should explain things’ from the previous page, and try to blow that up into support for your subsequent stupids. I was addressing Marcus there, not you, and I was addressing his preceding errors, not the ones you've dreamed up since. In this case, context does matter.
Chumpy, I know yore stupidity prolly ain't entirely yore own fault, but to combine it with such a streak of dishonesty makes yore intentions distinctly suspect.
"I merely noted that the difference between 15.8% and 13% (actually 13.3%) was not a particularly significant difference."
I see. So you were just admirin' the mystical juxtaposition of those two similar numbers, like some sort of Hoosier Ramanujan. LOL.
"I did not speculate as to the likelihood of that concurrence nor the reason for it.
Acshully, ya did. Y'all commented on how the rate of black poverty provided extra mitigating circumstances, to wit:
"Control for socio-economic variables and blacks are no more violent nor more likely to murder (at least across the black/white racial line) than are whites."
Why would you impose such controls -- as opposed to controllin' for the likelihood of, say, ownin' a red Volkswagen -- unless ya were anglin' to show that the propensity to murder is no greater in one population than the other?
But, of course, by omittin' the overall statistics ya used the wrong figures in exactly the same way ya accused Marcus of doin'. In fact, pro rata, blacks in the US are twice as likely to murder across the black/white racial line and five times more likely to commit murder overall.
It's that "pro rata" concept ya seem to be strugglin' with, as y'all keep omittin' the figgers y'all need to calculate them. But then, y'all have no problem just out and out lyin' and claimin' ya got the right answer regardless. LOL.
" I think if you control for economic status you'll find it pretty well evens out (e.g. whether white or black, poor folks are more likely to try an armed robbery someplace; black folks are poor in higher percentages). Lee C. @ Wed Oct 11, 11:42:00 am
[Petes]: "The troll's other bizarre (and very racist) conclusion is that poverty makes black people want to kill white people."
[Troll]: "Yep, stupid not blind. I made no such assumption; I drew no such conclusion. Didn't happen."
Yep, ya did. I cited it in my preceding post. Ya attempted to show that if you "control for socio-economic variables" then "blacks are no ... more likely to murder (at least across the black/white racial line)...".
So you are saying they are more likely if ya don't take poverty into account. In other words, poverty makes them kill white people.
[Troll]: "I think if you control for economic status you'll find it pretty well evens out"
I think you'll find it dudn't. Blacks are twice as likely to be in poverty. They are five times as likely to commit murder. Y'all have some statistics that show that poverty increases the propensity to murder by a factor of 2.5? Nah, didn't think so.
"So you are saying they are more likely if ya don't take poverty into account."
No, I'm merely aware that there are ongoing hostilities between minority groups in some urban areas, especially between blacks and hispanics that I'm aware of, these do not necessarily correlate to economic differences between the two groups nor to the socio-economic status of either group. There may be other factors to consider as well as socio-economic status.
Wrong comparison. You'll need to present evidence that they're five times as likely to commit murder as that particular sub-group of whites who live in a comparable socio-economic status. Comparing them to whites at large ain't gonna fly.
"You'll need to present evidence that they're five times as likely to commit murder as that particular sub-group of whites who live in a comparable socio-economic status. Comparing them to whites at large ain't gonna fly."
That is called "begging the question". You assume up front that the difference is socio-economic status. That may be a hypothesis to be tested. (Although you already tried it and it didn't work, so ya moved onto something else). It may also be because they are not white. That's another hypothesis to be tested. (One that Marcus treats as a given, also without providing any evidence).
Says me. You trying to resurrect the question about you being perhaps blind again?
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "You assume up front that the difference is socio-economic status."
Yes. Most of it anyway. Enough to just answer, "yes".
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "…to makin' excuses for one minority group…"
Not making excuses, just allowing for the possibility that there may well be other factors to consider.
It is funny to watch you swing from calling me a racist with a bias against blacks to an apologist for blacks though. You're getting desperate.
Tell ya what… May make you feel better than you keep gettin’ your ass handed back to you here… You can again take up your fuss with Marcus to keep you busy. Perhaps you can even convince him that Irish kindergarten kids are being taught long division (Petes @ Thu Oct 12, 11:59:00 pm ↑↑) rather than being inculcated with ol' fashioned Catholic guilt. I ain't buyin’ that one, but Marcus might.
"It is funny to watch you swing from calling me a racist with a bias against blacks ..."
I never did any such thing. I said your statement that poverty makes black people wanna kill white people is racist. And so it is.
"You can again take up your fuss with Marcus..."
Let's get somethin' straight: I am just callin' you both out on an invalid use of the numbers. I've fixed that for ya. Now ya have the right figures ya can get back to sluggin' it out over the reasons for it. Yore welcome.
"Irish kindergarten kids... being inculcated with ol' fashioned Catholic guilt."
You smokin' crack tonight? Or just on a nostalgia trip with the John Wayne + Maureen O' Hara vids? We should swap stories about what those Yankee kindergarten kids get up to from my extensive research into Little House on the Prairie. LOL.
Just for the benefit of "yore audience" and to stop ya intentionally muddyin' the waters, here's the same statistics I gave ya, from fact checkers at one of the UK's largest TV channels. Blacks are more than four times likelier to commit murder than whites. (It was seven times in 2008).
As for the reasons for it ... well ya should read the linked article on that too. I certainly ain't gettin' between you and Marcus in that argument.
Had a thought as I was laying down. And came back for it. Found this which I'll take up first.
"I said your statement that poverty makes black people wanna kill white people is racist."
I made no such statement.
However, the thing that brought me back was I remembered how you suddenly got riled when I mentioned again your last catastrophe, so I thought I'd close tonight with another reminder of that. (Maybe use some of your tonight's stuff later, just for fun, but this is now not later, so, let all recall…)
"It's clear to a kindergarten child that the EPA page is about the amount of CO2 used in the production of 75 kWh of electricity from fossil fuels." Petes @ Fri Oct 06, 12:53:00 pm
Except, it clearly was not about ‘the amount of CO2 [generated] in the the production of 75 kWh of electricity from fossil fuels’. Rather, it reads as follows:
"Does not include emissions from generating electricity; learn more at fueleconomy.gov." Lee C. @ Fri Oct 06, 02:30:00 pm (emphasis added)
And, with that, I'm down for the night. Fairly late, but I'm finally down for the night.
Well, I'm quite glad to see yore little embarrassment is keepin' ya awake at night. Might be a sign of the faint glimmerings of conscience (though I'd reserve judgement on that till ya show some more solid signs).
Anyway, in yer latest flight of fantasy ya say:
"Except, [the EPA page] clearly was not about ‘the amount of CO2 [generated] in the the production of 75 kWh of electricity from fossil fuels’. Rather, it reads as follows: Does not include emissions from generating electricity"
Now, any reader not too jaded to follow yer ravings (and I suspect there aren't any such readers) will note that yore link refers to two pages. One of them was linked by me. The other was an irrelevancy ya came up with yoreself, unbidden. The thing you say was on the EPA page linked by me, was actually on a Tesla Roadster label linked by you. Completely unconnected. You are lyin' through yore ass.
Meanwhile, if ya wanna plead yore hopeless case in a different court, ya could ask Lynnette about her comment, to wit:
"It is the EPA's Greenhouse Gas calculator that Petes is referring to. Plugging in 75 KWH's of electricity it comes up with comparisons to other fuels that will emit the same greenhouse gas. In this case 6.3 gallons of gasoline will emit the same amount of CO2."
Ya see, it's only you, Chump, that is sufferin' from this particular delusion. Everybody else is quite clear on what was said, and what it means. Perhaps ya might sleep on that.
Excellent. I was hoping I'd not have to explain that part; too tedious I thought. So, it's clear enough for people to follow, even you whilst doing your ‘possum response’. I was hoping that would be the case; excellent.
Oh, yeah, but I did have a question that came up as I was going down…
"Or just on a nostalgia trip with the John Wayne + Maureen O' Hara vids?" Petes @ Sat Oct 14, 02:58:00 am ↑↑
They have Irish kindergarten kids in one of their ‘vids’? That'd be news to me. Which one would that be? Or, as is more likely, you're just beset by your imaginings again?
[Lynnette]: "...the headline recently about Trump's golf courses in Scotland losing millions of dollars?"
Judging by the one in Ireland, I'd say it's less to do with Trump's (un)popularity and more to to do with the fact that it's crap! His luxury Doonbeg golf resort on the west coast of Ireland charges about the same rates as Ireland's most exclusive period hotels, like Ashford Castle and Adare Manor. I've stayed in all of them, and I can tell you that Trump's does not deserve a five star rating.
No answer for us Petes? No suprise there I reckon. I'll vote for ain't no such ‘vid’ and you were just beset by your imaginings. On to other things…
"I've fixed that for ya. Now ya have the right figures…" Petes @ Sat Oct 14, 02:58:00 am
" They [blacks] are five times as likely to commit murder." Petes @ Sat Oct 14, 02:30:00 am ↑↑
"…to stop ya intentionally muddyin' the waters, here's the same statistics…. Blacks are more than four times likelier to commit murders than whites." Petes @ Sat Oct 14, 03:09:00 am ↑↑
(It came out to 4.3 times, rounds down to four, not up to five.)
"(It was seven times in 2008). Petes @ Sat Oct 14, 03:09:00 am ↑↑
Seven is also not five. The only number he forgot to hit on the way by is six. He seems to muddying his own waters.
Trump's golf course in Scotland has hosted the British Open four times (among other high class tournaments), so it's probably a decent course. The Brits are smug about the British Open and prefer to call it simple ‘The Open’ as if being British gives them the right to claim ownership of a game originating in Scotland.
But, it's still losing money now that Shorthands is President. Maybe they miss his smiling orange face and won't come ‘round any more without it? Havta ask Petes I guess.
There wasn't any kneeling at the national anthem during Thursday night's game, Eagles vs Panthers, but two of the Eagles did the Black Power Salute, clenched right fist raised in the air on a stiff arm, head down. Rather more of a display of defiance than just quietly kneeling if ya ask me. Surely wouldn't get the Shorthands' Seal of Approval if he knew its history.
By the way, little remarked during the dust-up over Shorthands' efforts to kill ObamaCare instead of repealing it, the Childrens Health Care Program (CHIPs), which offered medical insurance to about nine million children of low-income families has just this month expired. It's been a fixture for 20 years, but has never had permanent funding. The Republicans refused to take up its reauthorization this session, and it expired without even a vote on it.
Nine million children lost their access to medical care. But, that got lost in the dust-up over defunding ObamaCare. I think it'll come up again when kids start dying preventable deaths.
New timeline on the Vegas shooter. Unarmed Mandalay Hotel guard heard noise of shooter drilling a hole in the wall and began to approach the suite. Shooter pumped 200 rounds through the door, wounding the guard, who radioed for help. ‘Within seconds’ the shooter turned his rifles to the outside targets and began firing into the fuel tanks (far side of the crowd) and then into the crowd itself.
maybe it's a toss up as to what will hurt Trump more domestically, the lack of health insurance or all of the people dying in Puerto Rico because Trump's government can't, or won't, handle a natural disaster properly.
Quite a lot of the efforts of the Republican Party these past few years have been designed to animate their ‘base’ to resist all things having anything to do with that black bastard holed up in their White House.
Then really the Trump WH is merely another battle in the struggle for racial equality that has been the bane of the United State's existence. Perhaps for some of the Trump voters it was merely a protest vote, but for others it is simple bigotry.
Puerto Rico's problem is fairly simple. Texas has 66 electoral votes. Florida has 29. Louisiana has eight. All of them likely to go for Trump again if he runs again (maybe Florida is iffy, but he's got a shot at it). Puerto Rico has none. For Trump, everything always comes down to how it effects Trump.
You are right that in absolute numbers black people kill about twice as many white people as vice versa in the US. You are right that compared to the proportions of whites to blacks in the population, this is even more stark (Fri Oct 13, 01:04:00 pm). You seem to want draw an extremely racist conclusion:
As was pointed out later in the comments there are other factors involved in the higher numbers for the black murder rate. I assume the link you left to an article gets in to those, but I haven't had a chance to check out links this morning.
According to a police officer we know the most dangerous call an officer can get is a domestic. Doesn't matter what color of skin the people involved have. Just another factor in the murder rate.
It just occurred to me that I just happen to have a link sitting around from back when I was looking up sources on the subject of…
"The thing you say was on the EPA page linked by me, was actually on a Tesla Roadster label linked by you. Completely unconnected. Petes @ Sat Oct 14, 03:58:00 am ↑↑
(Keep in mind folks I'm the one who pointed out that it was off a 2017 Tesla Roadster; this is not something Petes discovered. I grabbed the Roadster's label ‘cause it was the 2017 version, and all totally electric cars read the same on that line. Also, I didn't want to waste the time to keep looking for a Tesla S label just to show the exact same language.)
Thing is, all full electrics had labels that read the same in 2017. And it just so happens that I remembered that I do have a link to the EPA standard label bearing just that exact language (plus a beaurocrat's attempt at explanation of what it all means); to wit:
"This vehicle emits 0 grams [CO2] per mile. The best emits 0 grams per mile (tailpipe only)! Does not include emissions from generating electricity; learn more at fueleconomy.gov." EPA-fueleconomy.gov
Petes knows they all read the same; he's just hoping that you never find out. (And maybe also thinking that I don't know and so I won't tell you.) He's still trying to con you guys, ‘cause he thinks he can get away with it. He's lying to you on purpose ‘cause he thinks he can. Remember that.
And this is nowhere near the first time. Nor will it be the last. Remember that too.
And I would also encourage you to visit the EPA's website @ EPA--fueleconomy.gov and notice the language which says:
"The Fuel Economy and Environment Label provides a Greenhouse Gas Rating, from 1 (worst) to 10 (best), based on your vehicle's tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions only. This rating does not reflect any GHG emissions associated with fuel production." (emphasis added)
"Which would beg the question of why people think he is a successful businessman?"
Because his father left him a boatload full of money and he's managed to not lose it all. Bloomberg's financial ratings as well as Forbes' say he's worth about $3.5 billion, not the $11 billion that he claims (and he won't release his full financials nor his taxes to clear it up). But, if they're right, then he'd have done better to have put his inheritance in an indexed stock fund (safe reliable, goes up if the Dow goes up, goes down only if the whole Dow goes down). This is considered a no-risk option for folks who don't know how to play the market. They say he'd have done better that way than pursuing his own business. Not exactly a genius businessman.
[Troll]: "Thing is, all full electrics had labels that read the same in 2017... This vehicle emits 0 grams [CO2] per mile."
WTF? The troll just discovered that EVs don't have tailpipes with CO2 coming out? And he's expectin' it to be a revelation to the rest of us like it was to him? This is gittin' bizarrer by the minute :-)
[Troll]: "The Fuel Economy and Environment Label provides a Greenhouse Gas Rating, from 1 (worst) to 10 (best), based on your vehicle's tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions only. This rating does not reflect any GHG emissions associated with fuel production (emphasis added)"
Yore the only one who brought up that Tesla Roadster sticker. By it's own definition it says nothin' about well-to-wheels efficiency. Whatever relevance y'all imagine it has to anything will remain, I suspect, the subject of yore personal imaginings.
[Troll]: "Quite a lot of the efforts of the Republican Party these past few years have been designed to animate their ‘base’ to resist all things having anything to do with that black bastard holed up in their White House."
[Lynnette]: "Then really the Trump WH is merely another battle in the struggle for racial equality that has been the bane of the United State's existence. Perhaps for some of the Trump voters it was merely a protest vote, but for others it is simple bigotry."
[Troll]: "That would seem to be the case."
I'm afraid you both seem to be sucking on the progressive crack pipe. Far be it from me, a foreigner, to claim any special knowledge of the recent election, but as far as I was aware the black guy (bastard or otherwise) had reached his term limit. The only black guy I noticed in the primary race was a Republican. The six major Democrat candidates were white as snow.
Did I miss a poll or something that showed racism was a major factor in Trump's vote? Or is it just another standard part of the whinge fest to hand wave about "some" or "quite a lot" of bigotry, with no facts or figures?
Thank God for that. Y'all are the finest exemplar of how "zero emissions" would be a good thing.
[Troll]: "You seem to got nothin’ else."
Last I checked there was no need for anything else. Ya were given all the evidence several hundred posts ago. Sorry ya lost so much sleep over it (not really).
[Troll]: "Trump's golf course in Scotland has hosted the British Open four times, so it's probably a decent course."
He didn't built the course and it hasn't hosted an Open under him (nor will it in the next five years). What he is responsible for is the hotel revamp which has been various described as bling-tastic, "Las-Vegas-on-Sea", glittery and meretricious. That accords pretty well with what I saw of his Irish operation -- tons of money spent to create a tasteless barn.
[Troll]: "The Brits are smug about the British Open and prefer to call it simple ‘The Open’"
Seein' as it was first played the year before yore Civil War, I doubt there was much competition for the name.
So now that the troll has finally decided to shut up, let's look at the actual amount of petroleum used in the real world to generate 75 kWh of electricity. I'll keep it extremely simple as the troll will doubtless be back to fling crap around.
To a first approximation, we simply express kilowatt hours and gallons of gasoline in equivalent energy units, multiply by the efficiency of the generator, and that's the answer. Fortunately the EIA has done all the work for us:
Then use any one of a plethora of energy conversion tools, such as this one, to convert 10687 Btu to gallons of gasoline. Answer: 0.086 gallons of gasoline per kWh of electricity.
Finally: 75 kWh x 0.86 gallons per kWh = 6.5 gallons.
In other words: exactly what the troll was told all those hundreds of posts ago.
"3) A historical list of real world fuel usage for different generator types." Petes @ Sat Oct 14, 03:48:00 pm
Well, see, Petes, there's your big problem right there. Or, that's one of them at least. We weren't talking about building historical generator types, or, at least I wasn't. That would be a stupid thing to do. (Perhaps that's the Irish Catholic way to do things, but I'd suggest doing better.) I would suggest we build modern, efficient powerplants to supply the needed electricity rather than Irish-type, ‘historical’ powerplants to supply same.
Last thing we need to do is follow Petes' admonition to ‘let's be stupid’. So, with that in mind…
"Taking best case figures, the efficiency of a combined-cycle gas turbine generator is 54%, the efficiency of electricity transmission on the grid is 92% and the efficiency of charging an EV is about 90%. Even in this best case the overall process is 54% x 92% x 90% = 45% efficient." Petes @ Wed Oct 04, 03:43:00 am
Now, Petes has underestimated the available effiency of the modern combined-cycle gas turbine generator. They're running up around 60% efficient these days. (And, before you start, Petes, remember Google is your friend.) So, we can bump the process efficiency (power in the battery) up to 50% or a little better. And, the EPA has actually already done the calculations for us to convert power from gasoline to kWh in the battery. We don't have to let Petes lead us in circles until he deposits us in the wrong place. The EPA has already done the work for us. And Petes already told us what it was.
"…a 75 kWh battery has the energy equivalent of 2 gallons of gasoline. But at 45% generator-to-battery efficiency, that 2 gallons of gas energy requires more than 4 gallons to provide it." Petes @ Wed Oct 04, 03:43:00 am
The only thing he got wrong was that combined-cycle gas turbine generators run at about 60% efficiency these days, as I mentioned before, so it'd take just about 4 gallons of gasoline to charge that Tesla S (or Tesla Roadster for that matter); it would not take 6 point whatever gallons of gasoline. And, remember the Telsa gets around 249 miles on that charge (a newer model Tesla will get 335 miles or so they say).
I'll skip going back over the argument against distilling gasoline first and then using the gasoline to produce electricity and how much more fuel we can pick up by doing the latter. We've already been over that.
Ya'll wanna wonder around in Petes' newest revisions to the truth, be my guest; I'll not try to stop you. It won't change the fact that we've already got the fuel we need to run an electric car fleet all we have to do is use it to run an electric car fleet. And, the infrastructure will be compatible with better ways of producing electricity, say solar, wind, biofuels, tidal, geo-thermal, hydropower, lots of things. The gas guzzler runs only on gas (may be modified to use other fossil fuels, but usually at a loss of some efficiency, and using more fossil fuels isn't the best answer anyway.)
And I ran out of character space and had to hold this for the second hit.
The EPA's 6.3 gallons of gas on that page Petes originally showed us was the amount of gasoline they figured it'd take pumped into a competing gas guzzler; hence that little gas pump icon. They had a different icon, a powerplant icon for fuel used in a powerplant, if ya'll will recall. But, ya'll should also recall that they were figuring the Tesla to only go 137 miles, not 249--the actual gallons necessary to travel that distance, pumped into an EPA standard model gasoline powered auto, at 21.7 mpg, would have been almost 11½ gallons of gasoline. (249 miles ÷ 21.7 miles per gallon = 11.47+ gallons)
And, wanderin’ ‘way from the electric car controversy… I notice that Steve Bannon has declared ‘war’ on the Republicans in Congress. Starting with Mitch McConnell. (Paul Ryan's on the target list too, but Bannon was gettin’ a fine response to targeting McConnell, and didn't want to put his audience to too much trouble following along.) Venue was the ‘social conservatives’ as they call themselves at the annual Values Voters Summit. CBSNews
This may not have been the wisest move to make; McConnell can be devious, and sometimes vicious when he's cornered.
Take it up with Lynnette. She's got yore number on that one, and I don't see why I should do all the work. As for the rest:
[Troll]: "Perhaps that's the Irish Catholic way to do things, but I'd suggest doing better... Now, Petes has underestimated the available effiency of the modern combined-cycle gas turbine generator."
When y'all get less busy bein' an idiot and a bigot, y'all might notice that petroleum is not natural gas. To put in words y'all might understand, one's runny and one's floaty.
Y'all might also notice, the EIA figures are based on actual achieved efficiency, not some theoretical number y'all can pull out of yer ass. Their number for natural gas ain't vastly better, at 43%.
And I've been generous in the latest calculation, allowing nothing for transmission and charging losses.
[Troll]: "It won't change the fact that we've already got the fuel we need to run an electric car fleet all we have to do is use it to run an electric car fleet."
And again, if ya warn't busy bein' a clueless fool, you'd have noticed that I never disagreed with that. What I said is that it will be just as polluting, will cost ya ten trillion dollars and a hundred years to build the infrastructure, and at the end of it ya will have a lot of furnaces designed to burn a fuel will probably no longer exist.
LIGO and the ESO have separately announced big press conferences for Monday. Too coincidental to not be a joint announcement. And hard to see how it can be anything other than a gravitational wave detection with optical counterpart. Possibly confirmation of a neutron star merger that was rumoured in August. This would be a giant leap forward for gravitational wave astronomy.
"y'all might notice that petroleum is not natural gas."
Also meters are not yards. Equally irrelevant. A liquid fueled turbine/generator is a ‘gas turbine generator’; we've been here before; they've not forgotten.
"you'd have noticed that I never disagreed with that."
Well, there is this:
"The amount of energy in gasoline is mind-boggling. Even allowing for more efficient electric motors, the energy used in gasoline outstrips all of the electricity we generate. *** "It will be impossible to generate enough electricity any time soon." Petes @ Thu Sep 28, 02:16:00 am
My best guess is otherwise. I think they can build modern efficient power plants as fast as they can build and sell electric cars to use the power. I see no good reason this should not be true.
"and at the end of it ya will have a lot of furnaces designed to burn a fuel will probably no longer exist."
You mean like today's coal plants? We'll get over it. (And they will be able to use bio-fuels if those become available and competitive.)
"…not some theoretical number y'all can pull out of yer ass."
I quoted your prior statements. Mostly those numbers came out of your ass.
"It will be impossible to generate enough electricity any time soon." Petes @ Thu Sep 28, 02:16:00 am
"My best guess is otherwise." Lee C. @ Sat Oct 14, 07:16:00 pm ↑↑
And, on the unlikely chance that circumstances prove otherwise than my best guess, the problem will solve itself. A bottleneck on the availability of electrical power will suppress the sales of electrical vehicles until sufficient power seems to be available again. So, if it turns out there's actually a problem there, it'll also turn out to be self-correcting.
"Numerically greatest problem, by a wide margin, is white Americans killed by white Americans."
Only if ya include white Americans that kill themselves. Otherwise the numerically greatest problem, by a wide margin, is black Americans killed by black Americans.
[Troll]: "I think they can build modern efficient power plants as fast as they can build and sell electric cars to use the power. I see no good reason this should not be true."
LOL. Ya think anyone's gonna be persuaded by reasons that y'all can or can't see?
[Troll]: "And they will be able to use bio-fuels if those become available and competitive."
They won't. Y'all've been sippin' too much of the green Kool-Aid.
[Troll]: "And, on the unlikely chance that circumstances prove otherwise than my best guess, the problem will solve itself."
LOL. What a pompous arsehole.
[Troll]: "A bottleneck on the availability of electrical power will suppress the sales of electrical vehicles until sufficient power seems to be available again."
In which case: "It will be impossible to generate enough electricity any time soon". Which I said, two and half weeks and six hundred posts ago. Most of everything 'tween then and now has y'all's innumerate self wittering about stuff ya know nothing about.
It seems the good lord might be about to smite me for ribbin' Chumpy about those hurricanes ;-)
Been trackin' Hurricane Ophelia up the eastern Atlantic for the past four days, at this stage seems like a pretty definite direct hit on Ireland around midday Monday. Will be a post-tropical cyclone by then, but still producing gusts of 100 mph over much of the country. (Doesn't take a huge system to cover the entire country). That's once-in-a-generation kind of stuff for us, century-level if we're unlucky.
Eerily, it coincides with the 30th anniversary of the famous (in these parts) Michael Fish incident and the great storm of '87.
Oh well, I was plannin' a day in front of the Internet anyway for the LIGO announcement. Let's hope the power stays up. Have family supposed to be travellin' too, but I doubt there's gonna be anything taking off.
Ahh, you beat me to it Petes. I just saw that about Hurricane Ophelia and thought of you. Yes, it does look like the entire country will be impacted. I think you had mentioned that you have a couple of places? Obviously it all depends on how it makes landfall, but at least it is apparently a fast moving storm. It won't be sitting and spinning over you like Harvey did to Texas.
It is odd seeing a Hurricane in that area and having it gain strength over what is considered cooler waters.
I hope the Gods are kind to you and yours and there is minimal impact.
Thanks Lynnette. I think it will be late today (Sunday) before we're definite where this thing's going to arrive. But yes, if it veers a few miles east it will go up the Irish sea and potentially impact both my places. One forecast has 200 km/h winds on Irish Sea coasts and a 2 meter storm surge for Dublin which is more than an enough to cause coastal flooding on a few vulnerable hotspots.
It won't be the apocalyptic sort of stuff we saw in the Caribbean but will certainly be a threat to property and possibly to life and limb. Plus, I have this theory about those palm trees in the Caribbean evolving to cope with being bent in half ;-) Our trees are more of the "snapping" variety, plus that late autumn I was crowing about means the trees still have all their leaves for maximum drag.
I gather this is the furthest east Atlantic hurricane ever recorded, and it only loses its Category 3 storm status later today (hopefully). Ironically, beyond the edge of this thing in Britain they're expecting balmy weather with utterly unseasonal 25°C temps.
Interesting. I've come across that Sargon youtuber a fair bit lately. He spends some time deriding progressives, but always with a closely reasoned argument. He seems to be one of those more thoughtful conservatives that are springing up all over social media.
I listened to all of that vid and would be in broad agreement. It's not that different from stuff I've come across before.
Actually, I take that back. I've no idea if he's a conservative. I just know he's not as loopy as the progressive lunatic fringe. I shouldn't label someone "conservative" just for not being batshit insane ;-)
Aha. Just fell across the first Sargon video that I had seen earlier this year. Very sacrilegious about the Trump whinge fest. And very, very funny ;-)
Plus, I have this theory about those palm trees in the Caribbean evolving to cope with being bent in half ;-)
I think you are right there. What was really scary was the video out of the Caribbean which showed, that despite that adaptation, those palm trees were bowled over like matchsticks.
Although I suppose that saturated ground would play a role in the integrity of their root system leading to easier blow down.
I would hope that Ireland will have sturdier buildings to withstand extreme winds. The flooding, loss of power, and possible debris from downed trees will be the most critical things.
I listened to all of that vid and would be in broad agreement.
Me too. I think he, and others who have made this point, are correct when they say that a strong family structure and support system is very important to success. Poverty itself is not the entire reason for a higher crime rate in the black community, because as he points out other communities, such as Hispanic, also have a higher poverty rate, yet their crime rates are not as high.
I will have to watch the other videos later. I have a play today. And one of these days I will have to put up a new post, if only to restart the comments section. lol!
Shorthands has made this week's version of the ‘President's Weekly Address’ all about ‘THE FLAG’. (on YouTube) The move against the NFL was subtle (when have we ever known Shorthands to be subtle), but rather it was explicit. FoxNews Sunday has obliged by featuring it on their primetime Sunday morning show. It remains to be seen if the players can continue to kneel during the national anthem, or if the NFL will be obliged to kneel before its master.
On a more substantive level… I've been noticing the large number of issues Shorthands has engaged himself upon recently, only to then punt the issues to Congress. The Iranian/Joint Plan agreement is but the most recent example. We're all aware, I think, of his drive to escape responsibility for anything. He doesn't want to be associated with the work so long as he can Tweet after it's all over about how he gets all the glory. (No glory, he can delete any tweets on any matter that doesn't work out for him, as Luther Strange learned after he lost his bid for Senator to Roy Moore.)
It has occurred to me that this tracks along with one of his historical escapes from disaster. Back in the 80's resurgence of gambling in Atlantic City Shorthands got himself overextended, sold a bunch of stock to unsuspecting investors to cover his own money invested and then declared bankruptcy on his casinos (and this was during a period when it was thought that it should be almost impossible to lose money on gambling in Atlantic City). The investors got cleaned, but, more tellingly, the lenders were also about to get cleaned when Shorthands made them a proposal. He'd rent his name to the casinos that were over-leveraged (he got paid a monthly half million dollars as I recall), and he'd turn over management to the bankers who could put somebody in there to try to recover the business. He got to retrieve his investment up front; his stockholders got cleaned out. The lenders took him up on it. (He's been poison in American banking circles ever since.) Well, the bankers eventually closed out their loans in an orderly manner. They took some losses, but they didn't get cleaned out on the loans. More importantly, the casinos remained open and the Trump name remained up over the doors. His public image remained mostly unblemished. He threatened to invoke a disaster and made the bankers bail him out of it to protect their own interests.
I think he's now trying to do the same thing with Congress. Threaten disasters on all fronts, make them fix it for him (like he's tried to make China fix his North Korean problem), and then he'll tweet himself the credit for getting it fixed.
Problem is, this Republican Congress is dysfunctional. China didn't fix North Korea for him. This may not end well either.
I am watching Fareed Zakaria interview Hillary Clinton. It is so refreshing to again listen to a politician who can string two coherent sentences together.
I actually might have to buy her book. Yes, I know this interview is free advertising for that book, but she isn't doing anything anyone else hasn't done.
He has just asked her why she stayed with Bill Clinton. She says it was hard, but they had a long history together and she still had feelings for him.
He also asked her if she felt that Vladimir Putin interfered in the election because he held a grudge against her. She took a pass on that saying that she felt Putin was attacking the United States and democracy as a whole rather than just her. She felt he was trying to sow division within our country and is not finished.
*sigh*
She would have made a genuinely intelligent and hard working president who would have advocated for her country. Instead we have a fake president who advocates for the wealthier segment of our country at the expense of the most vulnerable and sows division where ever he goes.
The investors got cleaned, but, more tellingly, the lenders were also about to get cleaned when Shorthands made them a proposal. He'd rent his name to the casinos that were over-leveraged (he got paid a monthly half million dollars as I recall), and he'd turn over management to the bankers who could put somebody in there to try to recover the business. He got to retrieve his investment up front; his stockholders got cleaned out. The lenders took him up on it. (He's been poison in American banking circles ever since.)
Which begs the question of why anyone would trust this man again? He is the classic con artist. He and Bernie Madoff would get along great.
She talked about that too. It had a great deal to do with her defenses being up after being attacked so many times. She also admitted that she was not "a good fit" for this reality TV kind of era.
Pete: "You seem to veer dangerously close to assuming that all interracial crimes are race hate crimes. I doubt that's supportable."
Wut?
Where'dya get that idea from?
I never said anything of that sort. Quotes please.
I'm sure most fatal shootings in the USA is down to spur of the moment crime. Robberies taken a bit far, feelz gettin' a bit too hurt, shootin' for the lulz, gangland shooters gettin' it on with the kidz slingin' dope at the next block over, etc.
But the facts are that black shooters kill way more whites than white shooters kill blacks, and this is in absolute numbers(2,2 more often), So when taking into account that whites are 5 times more numerous than blacks (2.2 * 5 = 11 btw) it REALLY begs the question wether blacks in the USA should protest ethnic gun violence. Which is what BLM is all about.
Remember here that my starting point in this whole debate was not some racist anti-black storyline, it was wether or not Trump would "win" against the kneeling black ball-tossers. I still say he will. They will snap to and stand to attention, bet that.
"So when taking into account that whites are 5 times more numerous than blacks…"
Meaning, if they were picking targets entirely at random, blacks would kill five times as many whites as they kill blacks on account of there are five times as many white targets. However, the actual number is only 2.2 times as many. Blacks preferentially target other blacks rather than random targets, or rather than picking on whites, in fact they tend to avoid picking white targets.
Pete: "Marcus, I presume you've come across <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMUduwZdrDs>Göran Adamson</a>?"
Interesting.
But in the name of Joseph Stalin: no man no poblem.
Why take in alien cultures to begin with? Only to try and fail at molding them into our culture - which hasn't happened yet in any so called multicultural space?
Why not just say this is ours, you have yours, stay there. We'll help ya'll if ya face hardships, but we'll do so in your own homelands. Do not come to ours. Cause we don't charist the change ya'll bring with ya.
And, before you go there, Shorthands is not waving the flag at his white supporters in defense of the white folks right to keep black folks from killing one another. Ain't nobody fool enough to believe that's what he's all about.
Lee: "Meaning, if they were picking targets entirely at random, blacks would kill five times as many whites as they kill blacks on account of there are five times as many white targets. However, the actual number is only 2.2 times as many. Blacks preferentially target other blacks rather than random targets, or rather than picking on whites, in fact they tend to avoid picking white targets."
Doubt it's much abuot thought through avoidance. Prolly more that the rival gang sellin' dope at some other streetcorner ALSO happens to be black.
Black on black murder is indeed the very worst violent problem ya'll have over there. Which makes it all the more hypocritical for groups like BLM who are blaming whitey to get so much support.
Ophelia only got downgraded to post-tropical status a couple of hours ago. The thirty mile wide eye is gone, but this sucker is still looking worryingly well-formed as it approaches the 45th parallel.
"Which makes it all the more hypocritical for groups like BLM who are blaming whitey to get so much support."
I don't get the connection you seem to think you're making. I'll not declare it to be a non sequitor until I'm sure, but…
Simplified, probably over-simplified, but that's gonna be necessary to sharpen the point and avoid extraneous arguments here… The BLM movement is a protest against cops shooting unarmed black men in the back (two specific examples come to mind immediately from recent phone videos that the cops weren't able to confiscate and that managed to go public). Some black gangster shooting at his business competition in another setting on another day does not justify the cop shooting a different, unarmed black guy in the back, one who's obviously not threatening any other black folks.
"…black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.…unarmed black Americans [are] five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer. WashingtonPost (emphasis added)
Let's see now, blacks are 2.2 times as likely to shoot a white guy as the reverse, white guy shoots black guy. In response to that (presumably in response to that) cops are 2.5 times more likely to shoot a black to death (overall). But, if the black guy's unarmed, he's at a five times higher risk of getting shot than an unarmed white guy.
Well now, as we can all see, Shorthands just doesn't have any choice in the matter. The American cop's inalienable right to shoot down unarmed black men at five times the rate they shoot down unarmed white guys simply must be defended by attacking the NFL. There's simply no other choice for him.
And, let's keep in mind… Black folks shoot fewer white folks than would result from simple random chance in target selection, they preferentially select away from shooting white folks. White folks shoot more black folks than would result from simple random chance in target selection; white folks preferentially select to shoot more black folks than would result from random chance.
Shorthands obviously needs to vigorously protect this discrepancy and make sure it's maintained, even reinforced, so's to Make America Great Again.
[Chumpy @ Sun Oct 15, 12:32:00 pm]: "Meaning, if they were picking targets entirely at random, blacks would kill five times as many whites as they kill blacks on account of there are five times as many white targets. However, the actual number is only 2.2 times as many."
That's wrong, although the error may be in yore sentence construction rather than the stat.
[Chumpy @ Sun Oct 15, 01:38:00 pm]: "White folks shoot more black folks than would result from simple random chance in target selection; white folks preferentially select to shoot more black folks than would result from random chance."
And that's wrong too. Don't know if it yer maths or yore reading comprehension. (Don't much care neither).
"The American cop's inalienable right to shoot down unarmed black men at five times the rate they shoot down unarmed white guys simply must be defended by attacking the NFL."
So when they stood for the anthem in the Obama era was it to celebrate black guys' rights to shoot people (mostly each other) at five times the rate of any other demographic?
Assuming those crime statistic correlate to number of interactions with the police generally, then why wouldn't you expect five times as many accidents to occur? Unfortunate, but not necessarily an indicator of racism. The same circumstances that make black guys hugely more likely to be shot in general adds to their risk of being shot by police.
And for those who don't agree ... care to explain why a black police officer is 3.3 times more likely to shoot his gun than a white one?
"…care to explain why a black police officer is 3.3 times more likely to shoot his gun…"
A black officer is more likely to draw the ‘less desirable’ beats and ‘less desirable’ shifts and much less likely get the promotions which would move him (or her) up the ranks and out of day to day contact with real crime. That may or may not be changing these days (I've heard it argued both ways). But, if it is true it's not changing fast enough to overcome the ingrained ‘facts on the ground’ as the military calls them.
[Lynnette]: "I am watching Fareed Zakaria interview Hillary Clinton. It is so refreshing to again listen to a politician who can string two coherent sentences together... He has just asked her why she stayed with Bill Clinton. She says it was hard, but they had a long history together and she still had feelings for him."
And you actually believe that drivel? Hillary's interest in Bill was of the same nature as Bernie Madoff's "long history" with his investors.
She's right, though, to be diverting attention from the other cash cow sleazebag she failed to leave until she was forced to this week -- Harvey Weinstein. Gotta love all those women coming out denouncing him now after they've made their millions. I've no doubt that pervert ruined plenty of young lives, but the ones coming out all outraged now are the ones that could've done something to stop him. Why are they talking now about changing the culture in that supposed liberal bastion of Hollywood -- they made their livelihood out of it!
"although the error may be in yore sentence construction rather than the stat."
I have chosen to use Marcus’ offered stats. You may disagree with his stats if you please; I don't care. I figure to use his stats when directing comments to him (where possible) to avoid arguments over the raw numbers instead of over the trends they show.
[Chumpy]: "A black officer is more likely to draw the ‘less desirable’ beats and ‘less desirable’ shifts"
Ok, I got it. Racism makes black cops shoot people, just like it makes black guys shoot each other. Gotcha.
Gotta wonder if there's anything this all-encompassing racist theory can't explain. Maybe the LIGO announcement tomorrow is about how racism makes black holes crash into each other.
That's a serious dose of brainwashing you got there.
(All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.) Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white. (729 × 14.712+% = 107) Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107.
Next figure 729 random black people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 622 white people and the rest black. (729 × 85.287+% = 622) Actually black folks shot 500 white folks. 500 < 622.
"That's a serious dose of brainwashing you got there."
The history is accurate, it's even acknowledged in your chosen source. I quote:
"In fact, Jim Fife [a key researcher in this area], when he first noted 30 years ago that black NYPD officers were twice or three times as likely to shoot, faced a lot of criticism, even though he also said they’re working in different environments."
Your chosen researcher continued to say that:
"I don’t have the luxury of sort of explaining away that finding."
That could mean he didn't find the same sort of discrimination still obtaining today, or it could mean his data wasn't specific and detailed enough to address that question.
You seem to think I might be embarrassed by having been interrupted during my keypunching and then having picked up again in the wrong spot, used the wrong number on that last operation.
Well, it so happens that I was, for a few minutes. I'm long over it. Apparently you are not.
It's kinda like your spelling fixation, there's a natural tendency towards pettiness that overcomes you when you're losing the bigger argument. It's another one of your ‘tells’.
"So when they stood for the anthem in the Obama era…"
I think it was because they had though of no reason to not stand. I don't think it had anything to do with Obama or the black on black crime rate.
I think some cell phone videos pissed some of them off. I think Colin Kaepernick was telling the truth when he said he was protesting the tendency for police officers to shoot down unarmed black men and keep on getting away with it. (Since then Shorthands has done his dead level best to make it be about something else--he has largely succeeded with his white redneck audience. He has obviously succeeded with you as well.)
"You seem to think I might be embarrassed by having been interrupted during my keypunching and then having picked up again in the wrong spot, used the wrong number on that last operation. Well, it so happens that I was, for a few minutes. I'm long over it."
Oh yeah, clearly long over it ... that's why you've given us that long and laboured explanation of what went wrong several times. LOL.
"Since then Shorthands has done his dead level best to make it be about something else--he has largely succeeded with his white redneck audience. He has obviously succeeded with you as well."
As you noted already, I managed to conclude they were idiots all on my own. Shorthands is an idiot too ... for dragging the office of presidency into it. For a born and bred gazillionaire that preznit of yores is severely lacking in class. (Not that rich people are classy, but they do tend to put on that affectation).
"I managed to conclude they were idiots all on my own."
That may or may not be true. If it's true it's irrelevant. You've not been making the argument that they were idiots. You've been making the argument that Shorthands wants made, i.e. that whether or not they stand for the anthem has to do with their political affiliations (Obama or America in the case of Shorthands; in your case Obama or an unspecified alternative, one that is anti-Obama, but not otherwise specified).
It is kinda odd I think, nine months into Shorthands administration and he and his dedicated Trumpkins, and also Petes, who claims to not be a dedicated Trumpkin but…. They're all still fixated on Obama. He just keeps coming up in their thinking and arguments (Hillary too, but less than Obama.)
I think it's ‘cause what they're against is mostly what ties them together. Without being jointly ‘against’ they got nothin’ in common, or not enough to keep them together.
[Chump]: "No, that's not wrong. (All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.) Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random... Next figure 729 random black people decide to kill one person selected at random..."
Uh, Marcus's source never mentions 729 people of either race. And why on earth would you take the same number of white and black people as random killers when that's obviously not remotely in proportion.
Marcus's article also has some internal consistency problems. It says 2,574 whites were killed by other whites, and 229 blacks killed by whites. That means w-on-b is 8% and w-on-w is 92% which does not accord with the figure of 81% given.
Also, those stats include Hispanics as whites (and thus Hispanic gang crimes which make up a large proportion), whereas other stats which break it out differently give different results.
"Marcus's source never mentions 729 people of either race."
I presume you noticed the equations and chose not to understand them nor their connection to the argument. Got us another Petes' stupid goin’ on. Means you're about outta stuff to bitch ‘bout. It's a clear ‘tell’
Well, everybody else gets it. So, I'll just leave you out there.
[Chumopy]: "It is kinda odd I think... They're all still fixated on Obama. He just keeps coming up in their thinking and arguments (Hillary too, but less than Obama.)"
I wouldn't call it a fixation but I think I can explain it for ya anyway. When analysing the whinge fest, it is instructive to see what is different between Obama and Trump. One of the possible conclusions, dismaying though it is, is that the whingers are racists.
You've been makin’ some wild leaps tryin’ to get there, so I don't believe you'd be anywhere near dismayed to be able to finally be able to make it to your so obviously desired destination.
You know where you wanna go. You ain't figured out how to get there yet. You're not gonna be dismayed if you manage to pull it off. Ain't nobody buyin’ that one.
"I noticed you said: ‘All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015’. I further noticed that was a lie."
500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result. Sometimes also called a ‘sum’, but colloquially at least, it's a result. Not a lie. But, you already knew that. You're reachin’. You're gettin’ pathetic.
[Chumpy]: "The history is accurate, it's even acknowledged in your chosen source. I quote: ...black NYPD officers were twice or three times as likely to shoot... even though he also said they’re working in different environments."
Chumpy, it seems to me yore lyin' habits have become so ingrained that y'all are presentin' as evidence things that don't match what ya said. And you expect people to believe you?
Let's remember what YOU said: "A black officer is more likely to draw the ‘less desirable’ beats and ‘less desirable’ shifts".
Seems to me you got quite a nasty racist streak to ya.
Nope, that wasn't good enough to fool anybody. It wasn't good enough to draw a response. You'll have to try again. You gotta do better than that if you want keep us engaged, or even entertained.
So you took the total number of whites killed by blacks, added to the blacks killed by whites, divided by the proportion of the black population ... and presented that as the propensity for whites to kill blacks?
Seriously. Are you a fucking moron? We've had a hundred posts on why that's nonsense. YA EVEN LECTURED MARCUS ON SOMETHING SIMILAR YORESELF.
I'll point out to our audience that you did take another wild swing at the racist thing. You're really wantin’ to get there somehow. Ya know where ya wanna go, just don't know yet how to get there.
You keep making wild ass assertions that you know are not true. Does this work on your average Irishman back home? Is that why keep thinkin’ it'll work here?
--------------------------------------------------------- "…and presented that as the propensity for whites to kill blacks?"
No. But, you already knew that too. Still reachin'
--------------------------------------------------------- And I knew that how? Cos ya wouldn't say what ya thought it meant when I asked ya, hundreds of posts ago? And still won't. So, I'll tell ya what I told ya last time -- it's meaningless. Always was, still is. Yore maths problems ain't just with the calculator. But that we DID know.
"When analysing the whinge fest, it is instructive to see what is different between Obama and Trump. One of the possible conclusions, dismaying though it is, is that the whingers are racists." Petes @ Sun Oct 15, 03:52:00 pm ↑↑
The logic is a little confuse, if one can call it logic at all.
But,… Does it seem to you that Petes is alleging that supporters of Obama were (are?) probably racists? ‘Cause that's about the only thing I can pull out of this weird construct.
Same calculation. Different numbers. No explanation.
[Chump]: "Fri Oct 13, 07:26:00 pm"
No calculation. No explanation.
[Chump]: "Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm
Same calculation. No explanation.
[Chump]: "Does this work on your average Irishman back home?"
Can't vouch for the average Irishman but yore meaningless shit sure ain't workin' on me.
And my attempted corrections sure ain't workin' on you.
Which brings us to something of an impasse: y'all can't explain what yer tryin' to do, and ya can't understand what ya should be doin'. I guess yore lack of comprehension wins the day. But then, that's why you are The Chump.
That doesn't mean much, maybe nothing at all. Obama left office with a favorable rating running near‘bouts 60% if I recall correctly. Among the hundreds of millions of people who'd be included in that 60% it's beyond doubt that some of them would have been racists.
I think everybody gets it. Probably even you. If not, then everybody gets it except you, and I'll just have to chalk that up to your involuntary ‘possum response’, never to be overcome, and we'll just move along to the next thing.
I think I should go back at that question again. It seemed to me that Petes was working his way up to an allegation that supporters of Obama were probably racists. (Just the way I put it the first time.) That would mean ‘more likely than not’, or ‘more than 50%’, or some equivalent thing.
That what you got out of his otherwise weirdly constructed statement? And, if you draw a different conclusion, what?
Ophelia's makin' slightly more rapid progress than forecast. Off the coast of Brittany now, about to enter the Celtic Sea. Only seven hours from landfall and its been unusually calm here all evening. Very mild too, with the sort of very light drizzly rain you can get here in any season. I gather that's because Ophelia is still drawing a stream of air south onto its west side.
We won't feel anything this side of the country until well after landfall, when the nastier eastern edge of the system makes its way up the country. This is still looking hairy -- Ophelia may be post tropical but it currently still has hurricane force winds. The techie weather people say that its upper and mid levels are starting to separate, which means it has begun to dissipate. But it is also now interacting with the jet stream which could actually deepen the sea-level depression.
So as of now we are expecting sustained 85 mph winds, with stronger gusts, coastal storm surges and heavy rain. My sibling has got on a flight from London tonight instead of tomorrow, so should be hunkered down during tomorrow's inevitable travel chaos.
"This is obviously a bigger deal for him than I'd anticipated."
Howdja figure that Chumpy? Ya didn't even know about it until minutes ago. Which means I never mentioned it, as I see it as just a fact of life. If ya wanna see a "big deal", go review yore own non-stop bellyachin' about "Trumpkins" since well before the election. Now that is a hard core obsession of y'all's. Been postin' about it non-stop without anyone even botherin' to acknowledge it, by and large. Gotta wonder what's goin' on with y'all to be so agitated. Go my own theory on that too.
Right. Back to reminding "yore audience" about yore figgers at Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm. Just to explain it -- Chumpy got his 729 number by adding the number of white-on-black deaths to the number of black-on-white deaths.
Then he multiplied by the proportion of blacks in the population, to get a value. He won't tell us what that value is supposed to signify, but here's his exact statement:
"Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white. (729 × 14.712+% = 107) Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
Now, if I was a statistician, I'd be wondering: what the hell has thenumber of black-on-white deathsgot to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out on this one? He dudn't seem to want to take it from me that it's total hogwash.
The centre of Ophelia's circulation has just crossed the 50th parallel. That puts it less than 2 degrees south of Ireland's mainland. I could be wrong but it looks to me like it is further west than forecast, but then there are folks saying that it will track more northeast from here. Don't think it makes much difference to the battering on offer. Anyway, we'll know in a couple of hours.
Just coming up to 9am, Ophelia arrived bang on schedule. Power out in parts of south west Ireland already. Storm centre is about 50 miles offshore. I "snapped" this nice sunrise photo.
Coming up on midday. Still nothing worse than a bit of violent tree shaking in this neck of the woods. Lots of trees down in the south west and 100k houses without power.
1pm. Now things are starting to shake a little. Smaller branches snapping on the trees etc. The storm has progressed halfway up the west coast. They're have 100+ mph gusts over there, and now 150k houses without power. So far we are getting away very lightly over this side, although mid-afternoon is projected to be worst. A few injuries reported, some people rescued while kite surfing!!! (I hope they get locked up).
I'm given to understand that the Iraqi forces now approaching Kirkuk are following behind the Shia militias, under the leadership and control of Qassem Suleimani.
No doubt this is to be considered a great victory for the imaginary state of Sunnistan.
4pm. Some very battered looking trees outside my window, but nothing's come down yet. Dublin Bay buoy is measuring 80 mph gusts. South west was getting 120 mph gusts earlier. Centre of circulation now moving into the north west. One fatality so far that I know of (driver killed by falling tree).
The LIGO press conference has announced a neutron star merger with counterparts in gamma-, x-ray, optical, near infrared and radio. Light curve observed for a week from decay of synthesised heavy elements. No neutrinos. Press conference resumes after break in a few minutes ... exciting stuff.
5.30 pm. Still blowing, but easing, and the sun is doing its best to come out. A second fatality reported unfortunately.
That LIGO press conference was awesome. From my notes:
Yep, it was the neutron star merger from August 17th. Observed by LIGO, by four space telescopes (Fermi and Integral in gamma-rays, Chandra in x-rays, and Hubble in the optical) and by a hundred other instruments in optical, near-infrared and radio. Distance was 130 Mly in galaxy NGC 4993. Peak luminosity was 200m L_sun. There was a week-long light curve, looking like it peaked after about half a day, from radioactive decay of heavy elements. Based on the efficiency of heavy element production including gold and platinum, it was suggested neutron star mergers could replace supernovae as the supposed main progenitors of heavy elements beyond iron.
Press conference is on a break. Resumes at 4.15pm. EDIT: Q&A started 5pm.
The trend for long author lists on papers continues: the announcement paper for this one has 3,500 authors! :D
6pm. Ophelia still howling across the north and will hit the west coast of Scotland later tonight. 3 fatalities now -- two crushed cars, and some bloke dealing with a fallen tree managed to kill himself with a chainsaw. A third of a million houses without power.
"Always of prime importance to Petes that he impress his audience with a jargon-spew."
Yeah, well, I am the Great and Wonderful Petes, right? It's ok Chumpy. I understand why yore havin' difficulty bein' gracious. Any update on those figgers? No jargon required.
It looks like Ophelia has taken a little more westerly course than they originally had predicted, but Ireland still battered. I'm glad to hear that you have minimal damage, so far, Petes. I hope that remains so.
[Chumpy]: "Does it seem to you that Petes is alleging that supporters of Obama were (are?) probably racists?"
[Petes]: For the avoidance of doubt, let me clarify it for ya, Chumpy. That's exactly what I'm alleging. Not all of them, mind. Just some.
Maybe. I doubt that racism is only a white prerogative.
But you don't have to be a supporter of Obama to dislike Trump or the extreme right that has supported him. Nor do you have to be a racist. Authoritarianism is to be fought on every level, otherwise you run the risk of a Nazi Germany scenario. I have nothing but admiration for the likes of John McCain who has spoken out so eloquently for the checks and balances that were set up by our founding fathers.
Hmmm, been an hour now, little over an hour. It begins to appear that Petes requires a little more assistance in remembering just where he came up with this brand new jargon, this new term of his very own coinage, i.e. ‘black-on-white deaths’, which term he now refuses to identify.
It all began here:
"…here's his exact statement: ‘Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white. (729 × 14.712+% = 107) Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107.’ "Now, if I was a statistician, I'd be wondering: what the hell has the number of black-on-white deaths got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody??? "Anybody else able to help Chumpy out on this one?" Petes @ Sun Oct 15, 11:22:00 pm (emphasis by Petes)
Well, anybody wanna try to help him out on this one? Somebody wanna choose a definition for the fat boy to use, tell Petes what he shall henceforth mean by the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ and what will be the number that he shall henceforth associate with his new terminology?
I'm given to understand that the Iraqi forces now approaching Kirkuk are following behind the Shia militias, under the leadership and control of Qassem Suleimani.
I hadn't heard about this. It sounds like Iran is supporting Baghdad's desire to smother the Kurds' attempts at an independent state.
"It sounds like Iran is supporting Baghdad's desire to smother the Kurds…"
Yeah, aside from Iran being twitchy about their own Kurds, there's Tehran's desire to establish a land route under their own Shia control from Tehran to Beirut. An independent Kurdistan arising from the KRG areas could compromise that land corridor. And it could encourage an independent Kurdish state arising from the fragments that were once Syria, which could compromise Tehran's ‘Shia Cresent’ even further.
Not exactly good news for any imagined Sunnistan state arising, but I reckon Z is tribal for Arabs over Kurds in preference to his desired Sunni state.
[Chump]: "this new term of his very own coinage, i.e. ‘black-on-white deaths’, which term he now refuses to identify."
Now, if ya weren't a total moron, ya would check my original post wherein I used that term twice, explainin' where it came from on first usage. Bolded it both times specifically so that it couldn't be mistaken for anything else. Ya know this of course. Here -- allow me to link to that post of Sun Oct 15, 11:22:00 pm, just so "yore audience" know what a time-wastin' moron you are. They know that too of course. Yore not the only person who knows yore bein' an asshole. I suspect ya even know that.
"I'm glad to hear that you have minimal damage, so far, Petes. I hope that remains so."
Thanks Lynnette. Has reduced to an averagely blowy night now. Fair bit of damage around the rest of the country, and about 10% of all dwellings without power. But I guess it could have been worse. Rainfall amounts weren't too bad and, at least on the more populous east coast, the height of the wind coincided with low tide which was a major bonus.
I not only checked that post, I read it fairly closely, I even quoted from it extensively when I invited folks to go ahead and provide you the assistance you'd been begging them for. (@ Mon Oct 16, 02:22:00 pm ↑↑) That post does not define your new jargon. (If it had, you'd have repeated the definition for effect.).
Even if it did (and it doesn't), you still skipped the part about what solid number might be associated with your newly coined term. We'd still need that.
Trump doesn't dislike the ‘extreme right’; he plays to them, conspicuously. This is not a deal-breaker for the remainder of his supporters. They go right along with it, so they don't ‘dislike’ it too badly to join in close association.
Both Trump and Mitch McConnell have made comments today suggesting that the Republicans' proposed tax cuts for the wealthy might get postponed until next year. I'd take that as an indication that things aren't going well for them in their backroom negotiations. They'd never try to ram through tax cuts for the rich in an election year if they had an opportunity to do it the year before.
Petes' insistance that he's already provided a definition (and maybe even a solid number if he gets around to making the claim that he gave it a number) both of which he will continue to refuse to give us lest he be quoted on it, this is simply about maintaining deniablility for when his argument doesn't hold up later.
[Moron]: "this new term of his very own coinage, ... which term he now refuses to identify" [Moron]: "Where it came from is not a definition."
Y'all didn't ask for a definition. Y'all asked for an identification. I gave ya one. Furthermore, "yore audience" ain't stupid enough to be impressed by y'all askin' for a definition for somethin' ya refused to define yoreself, to wit:
[Petes]: "I noticed you said: ‘All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015’. I further noticed that was a lie."
[Moron @ Sun Oct 15, 04:03:00 pm]: "500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result. Sometimes also called a ‘sum’, but colloquially at least, it's a result. Not a lie. But, you already knew that. You're reachin’. You're gettin’ pathetic."
Let me return the favour then. The things you add to produce a 'sum' are sometimes called 'summands'. The identification you requested is that it is one of those summands. If y'all are too much of a moron to figger out which one, then simply try them both in turn and see what happens. Use the same definition y'all used when ya selected them from "Marcus' chosen source". Yore welcome.
Before the resident moron now pathetically continues to pretend not to be able to identify the numbers he used himself, let me short circuit him by pointing out that the labels used don't matter. One could just as easily have said, at Sun Oct 15, 11:22:00 pm, when pointing out his hogwash:
Right. Back to reminding "yore audience" about yore figgers at Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm. Just to explain it -- Chumpy got his 729 number by adding 500 to 229.
Then he multiplied by the proportion of blacks in the population, to get a value. He won't tell us what that value is supposed to signify, but here's his exact statement:
"Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white. (729 × 14.712+% = 107) Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
Now, if I was a statistician, I'd be wondering: what the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out on this one? He dudn't seem to want to take it from me that it's total hogwash.
"Y'all didn't ask for a definition. Y'all asked for an identification."
I used those two words interchangeably. There was no significant difference in meaning.
"Somebody wanna choose a definition for the fat boy to use…" Lee C. @ Mon Oct 16, 02:22:00 pm ↑↑
You knew that; you know that now; you still refuse to supply the definition, identify the meaning, of the term. That is what it is. We're here because you insist on maintaining deniablility. So be it. You can't even bring yourself to write down a number, one number and you can't bring yourself to just do it.
I don't consider this to be my problem. I am perfectly happy to let you swing in this wind.
When you ask for ‘figgers’ in the future, I'll only need remind you that you left it here.
And, just to put to bed one of your future tangents…
"You knew that; you know that now…"
And, even if you want to keep trying to pretend that you aren't just hiding behind a semantic evasion, it's beyond anyone's doubt that you know now I intended that to be a demand that you supply the definition, and the numerical value you have selected for that definition.
You know; you refuse be tied down to it. So be it.
No problem, moron. I'm totally happy to leave it there. I'm also happy to remind "yore audience" where this all started, with your dopy remonstrations to Marcus:
"Looks like you need a little help doing your numbers. Whites are 65% of the population; blacks are 13%. 65 ÷ 13 = 5. Blacks kill whites = 504. Whites kill blacks = 229. 504 ÷ 229 = 2.2. Ratio of blacks kill whites/whites kill blacks is smaller than ration whites to blacks." (Wed Oct 11, 12:03:00 pm)
And here we are folks, well over 300 posts later, with the moron claiming to be unable to connect my term "black-on-white deaths" with his term "blacks kill whites". After all his calculator malfunctions and switchin' numbers around, that's what it comes down to. He can't explain his numbers (or rather won't, 'cos it's finally dawned on him somewhere along the way that they make no sense). So he'll waste your time and mine till kingdom come tryin' to avoid bein' shown up. He'll lie and obfuscate at any cost to avoid that conclusion. He's been there a hundred times before, ain't no difference this time.
648 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 648 Newer› Newest»"The troll's other bizarre (and very racist) conclusion is
that poverty makes black people want to kill white people."
Yep, stupid not blind. I made no such assumption; I drew no such conclusion. Didn't happen. You imagined it up--that's gotta go hand-in-hand with stupid rather than blind.
And, before you quote the ‘This should explain things’ from the previous page, and try to blow that up into support for your subsequent stupids. I was addressing Marcus there, not you, and I was addressing his preceding errors, not the ones you've dreamed up since. In this case, context does matter.
Chumpy, I know yore stupidity prolly ain't entirely yore own fault, but to combine it with such a streak of dishonesty makes yore intentions distinctly suspect.
"I merely noted that the difference between 15.8% and 13% (actually 13.3%) was not a particularly significant difference."
I see. So you were just admirin' the mystical juxtaposition of those two similar numbers, like some sort of Hoosier Ramanujan. LOL.
"I did not speculate as to the likelihood of that concurrence nor the reason for it.
Acshully, ya did. Y'all commented on how the rate of black poverty provided extra mitigating circumstances, to wit:
"Control for socio-economic variables and blacks are no more violent nor more likely to murder (at least across the black/white racial line) than are whites."
Why would you impose such controls -- as opposed to controllin' for the likelihood of, say, ownin' a red Volkswagen -- unless ya were anglin' to show that the propensity to murder is no greater in one population than the other?
But, of course, by omittin' the overall statistics ya used the wrong figures in exactly the same way ya accused Marcus of doin'. In fact, pro rata, blacks in the US are twice as likely to murder across the black/white racial line and five times more likely to commit murder overall.
It's that "pro rata" concept ya seem to be strugglin' with, as y'all keep omittin' the figgers y'all need to calculate them. But then, y'all have no problem just out and out lyin' and claimin' ya got the right answer regardless. LOL.
Or, maybe stupid and blind? Missed this:
" I think if you control for economic status you'll find it pretty well
evens out (e.g. whether white or black, poor folks are more likely to try
an armed robbery someplace; black folks are poor in higher
percentages).
Lee C. @ Wed Oct 11, 11:42:00 am
Nah, stupid and willful, but not quite blind.
[Petes]: "The troll's other bizarre (and very racist) conclusion is that poverty makes black people want to kill white people."
[Troll]: "Yep, stupid not blind. I made no such assumption; I drew no such conclusion. Didn't happen."
Yep, ya did. I cited it in my preceding post. Ya attempted to show that if you "control for socio-economic variables" then "blacks are no ... more likely to murder (at least across the black/white racial line)...".
So you are saying they are more likely if ya don't take poverty into account. In other words, poverty makes them kill white people.
That's what ya said, in black and white.
"…how the rate of black poverty provided extra mitigating circumstances…"
‘Extra mitigating circumstances’ does not imply concurrence.
[Troll]: "I think if you control for economic status you'll find it pretty well evens out"
I think you'll find it dudn't. Blacks are twice as likely to be in poverty. They are five times as likely to commit murder. Y'all have some statistics that show that poverty increases the propensity to murder by a factor of 2.5? Nah, didn't think so.
"So you are saying they are more likely if ya don't take
poverty into account."
No, I'm merely aware that there are ongoing hostilities between minority groups in some urban areas, especially between blacks and hispanics that I'm aware of, these do not necessarily correlate to economic differences between the two groups nor to the socio-economic status of either group. There may be other factors to consider as well as socio-economic status.
"They are five times as likely to commit murder."
Wrong comparison. You'll need to present evidence that they're five times as likely to commit murder as that particular sub-group of whites who live in a comparable socio-economic status. Comparing them to whites at large ain't gonna fly.
"There may be other factors to consider as well as socio-economic status."
Sure. There may be. Or there may not. How about citin' some evidence as opposed to makin' excuses for one minority group by friggin' the numbers?
And that's assuming arguendo that your assertion of ‘five times’ is correct.
[Petes] "They are five times as likely to commit murder."
[Troll] "Wrong comparison."
Says who?
You mean it's a comparison you'd prefer me not to make?
"You'll need to present evidence that they're five times as likely to commit murder as that particular sub-group of whites who live in a comparable socio-economic status. Comparing them to whites at large ain't gonna fly."
That is called "begging the question". You assume up front that the difference is socio-economic status. That may be a hypothesis to be tested. (Although you already tried it and it didn't work, so ya moved onto something else). It may also be because they are not white. That's another hypothesis to be tested. (One that Marcus treats as a given, also without providing any evidence).
"Says who?"
Says me. You trying to resurrect the question about you being perhaps blind again?
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"You assume up front that the difference is socio-economic status."
Yes. Most of it anyway. Enough to just answer, "yes".
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"…to makin' excuses for one minority group…"
Not making excuses, just allowing for the possibility that there may well be other factors to consider.
It is funny to watch you swing from calling me a racist with a bias against blacks to an apologist for blacks though. You're getting desperate.
Tell ya what… May make you feel better than you keep gettin’ your ass handed back to you here…
You can again take up your fuss with Marcus to keep you busy. Perhaps you can even convince him that Irish kindergarten kids are being taught long division (Petes @ Thu Oct 12, 11:59:00 pm ↑↑) rather than being inculcated with ol' fashioned Catholic guilt. I ain't buyin’ that one, but Marcus might.
Ciao for now.
"It is funny to watch you swing from calling me a racist with a bias against blacks ..."
I never did any such thing. I said your statement that poverty makes black people wanna kill white people is racist. And so it is.
"You can again take up your fuss with Marcus..."
Let's get somethin' straight: I am just callin' you both out on an invalid use of the numbers. I've fixed that for ya. Now ya have the right figures ya can get back to sluggin' it out over the reasons for it. Yore welcome.
"Irish kindergarten kids... being inculcated with ol' fashioned Catholic guilt."
You smokin' crack tonight? Or just on a nostalgia trip with the John Wayne + Maureen O' Hara vids? We should swap stories about what those Yankee kindergarten kids get up to from my extensive research into Little House on the Prairie. LOL.
Just for the benefit of "yore audience" and to stop ya intentionally muddyin' the waters, here's the same statistics I gave ya, from fact checkers at one of the UK's largest TV channels. Blacks are more than four times likelier to commit murder than whites. (It was seven times in 2008).
As for the reasons for it ... well ya should read the linked article on that too. I certainly ain't gettin' between you and Marcus in that argument.
Had a thought as I was laying down. And came back for it. Found this which I'll take up first.
"I said your statement that poverty makes black people wanna kill
white people is racist."
I made no such statement.
However, the thing that brought me back was I remembered how you suddenly got riled when I mentioned again your last catastrophe, so I thought I'd close tonight with another reminder of that. (Maybe use some of your tonight's stuff later, just for fun, but this is now not later, so, let all recall…)
"It's clear to a kindergarten child that the EPA page is about the
amount of CO2 used in the production of 75 kWh of electricity from
fossil fuels."
Petes @ Fri Oct 06, 12:53:00 pm
Except, it clearly was not about ‘the amount of CO2 [generated] in the the production of 75 kWh of electricity from fossil fuels’. Rather, it reads as follows:
"Does not include emissions from generating electricity;
learn more at fueleconomy.gov."
Lee C. @ Fri Oct 06, 02:30:00 pm (emphasis added)
And, with that, I'm down for the night. Fairly late, but I'm finally down for the night.
Well, I'm quite glad to see yore little embarrassment is keepin' ya awake at night. Might be a sign of the faint glimmerings of conscience (though I'd reserve judgement on that till ya show some more solid signs).
Anyway, in yer latest flight of fantasy ya say:
"Except, [the EPA page] clearly was not about ‘the amount of CO2 [generated] in the the production of 75 kWh of electricity from fossil fuels’. Rather, it reads as follows: Does not include emissions from generating electricity"
Now, any reader not too jaded to follow yer ravings (and I suspect there aren't any such readers) will note that yore link refers to two pages. One of them was linked by me. The other was an irrelevancy ya came up with yoreself, unbidden. The thing you say was on the EPA page linked by me, was actually on a Tesla Roadster label linked by you. Completely unconnected. You are lyin' through yore ass.
Meanwhile, if ya wanna plead yore hopeless case in a different court, ya could ask Lynnette about her comment, to wit:
"It is the EPA's Greenhouse Gas calculator that Petes is referring to. Plugging in 75 KWH's of electricity it comes up with comparisons to other fuels that will emit the same greenhouse gas. In this case 6.3 gallons of gasoline will emit the same amount of CO2."
Ya see, it's only you, Chump, that is sufferin' from this particular delusion. Everybody else is quite clear on what was said, and what it means. Perhaps ya might sleep on that.
"…yore link refers to two pages…"
Excellent. I was hoping I'd not have to explain that part; too tedious I thought. So, it's clear enough for people to follow, even you whilst doing your ‘possum response’. I was hoping that would be the case; excellent.
Oh, yeah, but I did have a question that came up as I was going down…
"Or just on a nostalgia trip with the John Wayne + Maureen O' Hara
vids?"
Petes @ Sat Oct 14, 02:58:00 am ↑↑
They have Irish kindergarten kids in one of their ‘vids’? That'd be news to me. Which one would that be?
Or, as is more likely, you're just beset by your imaginings again?
[Lynnette]: "...the headline recently about Trump's golf courses in Scotland losing millions of dollars?"
Judging by the one in Ireland, I'd say it's less to do with Trump's (un)popularity and more to to do with the fact that it's crap! His luxury Doonbeg golf resort on the west coast of Ireland charges about the same rates as Ireland's most exclusive period hotels, like Ashford Castle and Adare Manor. I've stayed in all of them, and I can tell you that Trump's does not deserve a five star rating.
No answer for us Petes? No suprise there I reckon. I'll vote for ain't no such ‘vid’ and you were just beset by your imaginings. On to other things…
"I've fixed that for ya. Now ya have the right figures…"
Petes @ Sat Oct 14, 02:58:00 am
" They [blacks] are five times as likely to commit murder."
Petes @ Sat Oct 14, 02:30:00 am ↑↑
"…to stop ya intentionally muddyin' the waters, here's the same
statistics…. Blacks are more than four times likelier to commit
murders than whites."
Petes @ Sat Oct 14, 03:09:00 am ↑↑
(It came out to 4.3 times, rounds down to four, not up to five.)
"(It was seven times in 2008).
Petes @ Sat Oct 14, 03:09:00 am ↑↑
Seven is also not five. The only number he forgot to hit on the way by is six. He seems to muddying his own waters.
Trump's golf course in Scotland has hosted the British Open four times (among other high class tournaments), so it's probably a decent course. The Brits are smug about the British Open and prefer to call it simple ‘The Open’ as if being British gives them the right to claim ownership of a game originating in Scotland.
But, it's still losing money now that Shorthands is President. Maybe they miss his smiling orange face and won't come ‘round any more without it? Havta ask Petes I guess.
There wasn't any kneeling at the national anthem during Thursday night's game, Eagles vs Panthers, but two of the Eagles did the Black Power Salute, clenched right fist raised in the air on a stiff arm, head down. Rather more of a display of defiance than just quietly kneeling if ya ask me. Surely wouldn't get the Shorthands' Seal of Approval if he knew its history.
By the way, little remarked during the dust-up over Shorthands' efforts to kill ObamaCare instead of repealing it, the Childrens Health Care Program (CHIPs), which offered medical insurance to about nine million children of low-income families has just this month expired. It's been a fixture for 20 years, but has never had permanent funding. The Republicans refused to take up its reauthorization this session, and it expired without even a vote on it.
Nine million children lost their access to medical care. But, that got lost in the dust-up over defunding ObamaCare. I think it'll come up again when kids start dying preventable deaths.
I guess that's ‘Childrens' Health Insurance Program’ which supplies the ‘I’ for CHIPs.
New timeline on the Vegas shooter. Unarmed Mandalay Hotel guard heard noise of shooter drilling a hole in the wall and began to approach the suite. Shooter pumped 200 rounds through the door, wounding the guard, who radioed for help. ‘Within seconds’ the shooter turned his rifles to the outside targets and began firing into the fuel tanks (far side of the crowd) and then into the crowd itself.
maybe it's a toss up as to what will hurt Trump more domestically, the lack of health insurance or all of the people dying in Puerto Rico because Trump's government can't, or won't, handle a natural disaster properly.
Quite a lot of the efforts of the Republican Party these past few years have been designed to animate their ‘base’ to resist all things having anything to do with that black bastard holed up in their White House.
Then really the Trump WH is merely another battle in the struggle for racial equality that has been the bane of the United State's existence. Perhaps for some of the Trump voters it was merely a protest vote, but for others it is simple bigotry.
"Perhaps for some of the Trump voters it was merely a protest vote,
but for others it is simple bigotry."
That would seem to be the case. Some of both goin’ on. (In some cases, some of both goin’ on inside of one person.)
Puerto Rico's problem is fairly simple. Texas has 66 electoral votes. Florida has 29. Louisiana has eight. All of them likely to go for Trump again if he runs again (maybe Florida is iffy, but he's got a shot at it). Puerto Rico has none. For Trump, everything always comes down to how it effects Trump.
And besides, Puerto Ricans average darker of skin than the average dedicated Trumpkin--not Trumps' people; not Trumps' problem.
You are right that in absolute numbers black people kill about twice as many white people as vice versa in the US. You are right that compared to the proportions of whites to blacks in the population, this is even more stark (Fri Oct 13, 01:04:00 pm). You seem to want draw an extremely racist conclusion:
As was pointed out later in the comments there are other factors involved in the higher numbers for the black murder rate. I assume the link you left to an article gets in to those, but I haven't had a chance to check out links this morning.
According to a police officer we know the most dangerous call an officer can get is a domestic. Doesn't matter what color of skin the people involved have. Just another factor in the murder rate.
Florida has 29.
Might be the new Puerto Rico. So they may have a vote after all.
And besides, Puerto Ricans average darker of skin than the average dedicated Trumpkin--not Trumps' people; not Trumps' problem.
This had occurred to me.
Petes: Judging by the one in Ireland, I'd say it's less to do with Trump's (un)popularity and more to to do with the fact that it's crap!
Lee: Maybe they miss his smiling orange face and won't come ‘round any more without it?
Or maybe it is as poorly run as other properties he has owned or owns in the States.
Which would beg the question of why people think he is a successful businessman?
"... never mind those fucking bees just look at my other recent posts."
Now that made me actually laugh out loud.
I have to admit I did too! lol!
It just occurred to me that I just happen to have a link sitting around from back when I was looking up sources on the subject of…
"The thing you say was on the EPA page linked by me, was actually
on a Tesla Roadster label linked by you. Completely unconnected.
Petes @ Sat Oct 14, 03:58:00 am ↑↑
(Keep in mind folks I'm the one who pointed out that it was off a 2017 Tesla Roadster; this is not something Petes discovered. I grabbed the Roadster's label ‘cause it was the 2017 version, and all totally electric cars read the same on that line. Also, I didn't want to waste the time to keep looking for a Tesla S label just to show the exact same language.)
Thing is, all full electrics had labels that read the same in 2017. And it just so happens that I remembered that I do have a link to the EPA standard label bearing just that exact language (plus a beaurocrat's attempt at explanation of what it all means); to wit:
"This vehicle emits 0 grams [CO2] per mile. The best emits
0 grams per mile (tailpipe only)! Does not include emissions from
generating electricity; learn more at fueleconomy.gov."
EPA-fueleconomy.gov
Petes knows they all read the same; he's just hoping that you never find out. (And maybe also thinking that I don't know and so I won't tell you.)
He's still trying to con you guys, ‘cause he thinks he can get away with it. He's lying to you on purpose ‘cause he thinks he can. Remember that.
And this is nowhere near the first time. Nor will it be the last. Remember that too.
Fix spelling of ‘bureaucrat's, on account of it is Petes we're dealing with here.
And I would also encourage you to visit the EPA's website @ EPA--fueleconomy.gov and notice the language which says:
"The Fuel Economy and Environment Label provides a Greenhouse
Gas Rating, from 1 (worst) to 10 (best), based on your vehicle's
tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions only. This rating does not reflect
any GHG emissions associated with fuel production."
(emphasis added)
"Which would beg the question of why people think he is
a successful businessman?"
Because his father left him a boatload full of money and he's managed to not lose it all.
Bloomberg's financial ratings as well as Forbes' say he's worth about $3.5 billion, not the $11 billion that he claims (and he won't release his full financials nor his taxes to clear it up). But, if they're right, then he'd have done better to have put his inheritance in an indexed stock fund (safe reliable, goes up if the Dow goes up, goes down only if the whole Dow goes down). This is considered a no-risk option for folks who don't know how to play the market. They say he'd have done better that way than pursuing his own business. Not exactly a genius businessman.
"Not exactly a genius businessman."
But, he has managed to not lose it all, even if he's not managed to match the stock market averages over his years in business.
[Troll]: "Thing is, all full electrics had labels that read the same in 2017... This vehicle emits 0 grams [CO2] per mile."
WTF? The troll just discovered that EVs don't have tailpipes with CO2 coming out? And he's expectin' it to be a revelation to the rest of us like it was to him? This is gittin' bizarrer by the minute :-)
You think that's still workin’ for ya?
[Lynnette]: "As was pointed out later in the comments there are other factors involved in the higher numbers for the black murder rate."
It was pointed out, but no evidence was presented. The mere mention of "other factors" doesn't tell us anything.
"I assume the link you left to an article gets in to those, but I haven't had a chance to check out links this morning."
Yes. It says there is little in the way of conclusive, or even consistent, evidence.
[Troll]: "The Fuel Economy and Environment Label provides a Greenhouse Gas Rating, from 1 (worst) to 10 (best), based on your vehicle's tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions only. This rating does not reflect any GHG emissions associated with fuel production (emphasis added)"
Yore the only one who brought up that Tesla Roadster sticker. By it's own definition it says nothin' about well-to-wheels efficiency. Whatever relevance y'all imagine it has to anything will remain, I suspect, the subject of yore personal imaginings.
"Whatever relevance y'all imagine it has to anything will remain, I
suspect, the subject of yore personal imaginings."
They say imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, but in this case I think you've just run outta stuff. So, I'll not pretend to be flattered.
I guess we're done now. You seem to got nothin’ else.
So, ciao for now.
[Troll]: "Quite a lot of the efforts of the Republican Party these past few years have been designed to animate their ‘base’ to resist all things having anything to do with that black bastard holed up in their White House."
[Lynnette]: "Then really the Trump WH is merely another battle in the struggle for racial equality that has been the bane of the United State's existence. Perhaps for some of the Trump voters it was merely a protest vote, but for others it is simple bigotry."
[Troll]: "That would seem to be the case."
I'm afraid you both seem to be sucking on the progressive crack pipe. Far be it from me, a foreigner, to claim any special knowledge of the recent election, but as far as I was aware the black guy (bastard or otherwise) had reached his term limit. The only black guy I noticed in the primary race was a Republican. The six major Democrat candidates were white as snow.
Did I miss a poll or something that showed racism was a major factor in Trump's vote? Or is it just another standard part of the whinge fest to hand wave about "some" or "quite a lot" of bigotry, with no facts or figures?
"Did I miss a poll or something that showed racism was
a major factor in Trump's vote?"
Apparently so.
[Troll]: "I guess we're done now."
Thank God for that. Y'all are the finest exemplar of how "zero emissions" would be a good thing.
[Troll]: "You seem to got nothin’ else."
Last I checked there was no need for anything else. Ya were given all the evidence several hundred posts ago. Sorry ya lost so much sleep over it (not really).
(New subject, I intended to bow out of discussion of his old lies, not the whole of other things.)
"Sorry ya lost so much sleep over it (not really)."
Actually, it was something else keeping me up. You were merely a diversion indulged because I was already up. A way to while away the time.
But, I'm sure you are equally happy to have been used as a diversion. (Or, maybe not, but who cares?)
[Troll]: "Trump's golf course in Scotland has hosted the British Open four times, so it's probably a decent course."
He didn't built the course and it hasn't hosted an Open under him (nor will it in the next five years). What he is responsible for is the hotel revamp which has been various described as bling-tastic, "Las-Vegas-on-Sea", glittery and meretricious. That accords pretty well with what I saw of his Irish operation -- tons of money spent to create a tasteless barn.
[Troll]: "The Brits are smug about the British Open and prefer to call it simple ‘The Open’"
Seein' as it was first played the year before yore Civil War, I doubt there was much competition for the name.
So now that the troll has finally decided to shut up, let's look at the actual amount of petroleum used in the real world to generate 75 kWh of electricity. I'll keep it extremely simple as the troll will doubtless be back to fling crap around.
To a first approximation, we simply express kilowatt hours and gallons of gasoline in equivalent energy units, multiply by the efficiency of the generator, and that's the answer. Fortunately the EIA has done all the work for us:
1) A short intro to the issue.
2) A nice simple explanation of the formulae, both for calculating generator efficiency and fuel use per kWh.
3) A historical list of real world fuel usage for different generator types.
... from which we follow the EIA formulae to do two simple calculations:
Efficiency of petroleum-fired electricity generation using 2015 figures:
(3,412 Btu / kWh [electricity]) divided by (10687 Btu [fuel] / kWh) = 32% efficiency.
Then use any one of a plethora of energy conversion tools, such as this one, to convert 10687 Btu to gallons of gasoline. Answer: 0.086 gallons of gasoline per kWh of electricity.
Finally: 75 kWh x 0.86 gallons per kWh = 6.5 gallons.
In other words: exactly what the troll was told all those hundreds of posts ago.
(Or you can convert to barrels of oil if you're hung up about gasoline. Then the answer is 0.14 barrels, equal to 5.8 gallons. Big difference (not) ).
"3) A historical list of real world fuel usage for
different generator types."
Petes @ Sat Oct 14, 03:48:00 pm
Well, see, Petes, there's your big problem right there. Or, that's one of them at least. We weren't talking about building historical generator types, or, at least I wasn't. That would be a stupid thing to do. (Perhaps that's the Irish Catholic way to do things, but I'd suggest doing better.) I would suggest we build modern, efficient powerplants to supply the needed electricity rather than Irish-type, ‘historical’ powerplants to supply same.
Last thing we need to do is follow Petes' admonition to ‘let's be stupid’.
So, with that in mind…
"Taking best case figures, the efficiency of a combined-cycle gas
turbine generator is 54%, the efficiency of electricity transmission on
the grid is 92% and the efficiency of charging an EV is about 90%.
Even in this best case the overall process is 54% x 92% x 90% =
45% efficient."
Petes @ Wed Oct 04, 03:43:00 am
Now, Petes has underestimated the available effiency of the modern combined-cycle gas turbine generator. They're running up around 60% efficient these days. (And, before you start, Petes, remember Google is your friend.)
So, we can bump the process efficiency (power in the battery) up to 50% or a little better.
And, the EPA has actually already done the calculations for us to convert power from gasoline to kWh in the battery. We don't have to let Petes lead us in circles until he deposits us in the wrong place. The EPA has already done the work for us. And Petes already told us what it was.
"…a 75 kWh battery has the energy equivalent of 2 gallons of
gasoline. But at 45% generator-to-battery efficiency, that 2 gallons of
gas energy requires more than 4 gallons to provide it."
Petes @ Wed Oct 04, 03:43:00 am
The only thing he got wrong was that combined-cycle gas turbine generators run at about 60% efficiency these days, as I mentioned before, so it'd take just about 4 gallons of gasoline to charge that Tesla S (or Tesla Roadster for that matter); it would not take 6 point whatever gallons of gasoline. And, remember the Telsa gets around 249 miles on that charge (a newer model Tesla will get 335 miles or so they say).
I'll skip going back over the argument against distilling gasoline first and then using the gasoline to produce electricity and how much more fuel we can pick up by doing the latter. We've already been over that.
Ya'll wanna wonder around in Petes' newest revisions to the truth, be my guest; I'll not try to stop you. It won't change the fact that we've already got the fuel we need to run an electric car fleet all we have to do is use it to run an electric car fleet. And, the infrastructure will be compatible with better ways of producing electricity, say solar, wind, biofuels, tidal, geo-thermal, hydropower, lots of things. The gas guzzler runs only on gas (may be modified to use other fossil fuels, but usually at a loss of some efficiency, and using more fossil fuels isn't the best answer anyway.)
And I ran out of character space and had to hold this for the second hit.
The EPA's 6.3 gallons of gas on that page Petes originally showed us was the amount of gasoline they figured it'd take pumped into a competing gas guzzler; hence that little gas pump icon. They had a different icon, a powerplant icon for fuel used in a powerplant, if ya'll will recall. But, ya'll should also recall that they were figuring the Tesla to only go 137 miles, not 249--the actual gallons necessary to travel that distance, pumped into an EPA standard model gasoline powered auto, at 21.7 mpg, would have been almost 11½ gallons of gasoline. (249 miles ÷ 21.7 miles per gallon = 11.47+ gallons)
Havin’ fun yet Petes?
Maybe you should find where I misspelled ‘wander’, and that'll make ya feel better?
And, wanderin’ ‘way from the electric car controversy… I notice that Steve Bannon has declared ‘war’ on the Republicans in Congress. Starting with Mitch McConnell. (Paul Ryan's on the target list too, but Bannon was gettin’ a fine response to targeting McConnell, and didn't want to put his audience to too much trouble following along.) Venue was the ‘social conservatives’ as they call themselves at the annual Values Voters Summit. CBSNews
This may not have been the wisest move to make; McConnell can be devious, and sometimes vicious when he's cornered.
Troll @ Sat Oct 14, 04:49:00 pm
Take it up with Lynnette. She's got yore number on that one, and I don't see why I should do all the work. As for the rest:
[Troll]: "Perhaps that's the Irish Catholic way to do things, but I'd suggest doing better... Now, Petes has underestimated the available effiency of the modern combined-cycle gas turbine generator."
When y'all get less busy bein' an idiot and a bigot, y'all might notice that petroleum is not natural gas. To put in words y'all might understand, one's runny and one's floaty.
Y'all might also notice, the EIA figures are based on actual achieved efficiency, not some theoretical number y'all can pull out of yer ass. Their number for natural gas ain't vastly better, at 43%.
And I've been generous in the latest calculation, allowing nothing for transmission and charging losses.
[Troll]: "It won't change the fact that we've already got the fuel we need to run an electric car fleet all we have to do is use it to run an electric car fleet."
And again, if ya warn't busy bein' a clueless fool, you'd have noticed that I never disagreed with that. What I said is that it will be just as polluting, will cost ya ten trillion dollars and a hundred years to build the infrastructure, and at the end of it ya will have a lot of furnaces designed to burn a fuel will probably no longer exist.
[Troll]: "And, wanderin’ ‘way from the electric car controversy…"
Hey, it's not controversial. Yore an idiot and I schooled ya on the calculations. Seems pretty straightforward. Yore welcome. :-)
Hell, I can't be certain this way or that, when it comes down to decimals.
But for sure white americans killed by black americans is a numerically greater problem than vice versa.
I think white NBA players should take a knee to protest all them white who are killed, maimed or raped by blacks.
#whitelvesmatter
#wecanttakeitanymore
#blackshavasafespaceinafrica
[Marcus on a Saturday night bender]: "#whitelvesmatter"
Huh? White elves? Somebody been shootin' at Santa's sleigh now?
For Marcus:
♬ ♫ ♫ ♩ ♬ ♫
You better watch out, you better not cry
Better not shoot, I'm tellin' you why
Santa Claus is comin' to town
He's makin' a hitlist and checking it twice
Gonna leave some folks with eight-balls in their eyes
Santa Claus is comin' to town
He sees you when you're shootin'
He knows each shot you take
He knows if you've been bad or good
So don't miss for goodness sake
Oh! You better watch out, you better not cry
Better not shoot, I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is comin' to town
LIGO and the ESO have separately announced big press conferences for Monday. Too coincidental to not be a joint announcement. And hard to see how it can be anything other than a gravitational wave detection with optical counterpart. Possibly confirmation of a neutron star merger that was rumoured in August. This would be a giant leap forward for gravitational wave astronomy.
You heard it here first ;-)
"y'all might notice that petroleum is not natural gas."
Also meters are not yards. Equally irrelevant. A liquid fueled turbine/generator is a ‘gas turbine generator’; we've been here before; they've not forgotten.
"you'd have noticed that I never disagreed with that."
Well, there is this:
"The amount of energy in gasoline is mind-boggling. Even allowing
for more efficient electric motors, the energy used in gasoline
outstrips all of the electricity we generate.
***
"It will be impossible to generate enough electricity any time soon."
Petes @ Thu Sep 28, 02:16:00 am
My best guess is otherwise. I think they can build modern efficient power plants as fast as they can build and sell electric cars to use the power. I see no good reason this should not be true.
"and at the end of it ya will have a lot of furnaces
designed to burn a fuel will probably no longer exist."
You mean like today's coal plants? We'll get over it. (And they will be able to use bio-fuels if those become available and competitive.)
"…not some theoretical number y'all can pull out of
yer ass."
I quoted your prior statements. Mostly those numbers came out of your ass.
"But for sure white americans killed by black americans is a
numerically greater problem than vice versa."
Numerically greatest problem, by a wide margin, is white Americans killed by white Americans.
"It will be impossible to generate enough electricity any time soon."
Petes @ Thu Sep 28, 02:16:00 am
"My best guess is otherwise."
Lee C. @ Sat Oct 14, 07:16:00 pm ↑↑
And, on the unlikely chance that circumstances prove otherwise than my best guess, the problem will solve itself. A bottleneck on the availability of electrical power will suppress the sales of electrical vehicles until sufficient power seems to be available again. So, if it turns out there's actually a problem there, it'll also turn out to be self-correcting.
"Numerically greatest problem, by a wide margin, is white Americans killed by white Americans."
Only if ya include white Americans that kill themselves. Otherwise the numerically greatest problem, by a wide margin, is black Americans killed by black Americans.
I stand corrected. The homicide rate against blacks (as opposed to the murder rate) jumped after the financial crash of 2008. I hadn't picked that up.
[Troll]: "I think they can build modern efficient power plants as fast as they can build and sell electric cars to use the power. I see no good reason this should not be true."
LOL. Ya think anyone's gonna be persuaded by reasons that y'all can or can't see?
[Troll]: "And they will be able to use bio-fuels if those become available and competitive."
They won't. Y'all've been sippin' too much of the green Kool-Aid.
[Troll]: "And, on the unlikely chance that circumstances prove otherwise than my best guess, the problem will solve itself."
LOL. What a pompous arsehole.
[Troll]: "A bottleneck on the availability of electrical power will suppress the sales of electrical vehicles until sufficient power seems to be available again."
In which case: "It will be impossible to generate enough electricity any time soon". Which I said, two and half weeks and six hundred posts ago. Most of everything 'tween then and now has y'all's innumerate self wittering about stuff ya know nothing about.
That's the best ya got?
[Troll, in paraphrase]: Please whup me again!
I don't think even you believe that one. (On the other hand, you are a bit of a head case. But, even so, I don't think even you believe that one.)
It seems the good lord might be about to smite me for ribbin' Chumpy about those hurricanes ;-)
Been trackin' Hurricane Ophelia up the eastern Atlantic for the past four days, at this stage seems like a pretty definite direct hit on Ireland around midday Monday. Will be a post-tropical cyclone by then, but still producing gusts of 100 mph over much of the country. (Doesn't take a huge system to cover the entire country). That's once-in-a-generation kind of stuff for us, century-level if we're unlucky.
Eerily, it coincides with the 30th anniversary of the famous (in these parts) Michael Fish incident and the great storm of '87.
Oh well, I was plannin' a day in front of the Internet anyway for the LIGO announcement. Let's hope the power stays up. Have family supposed to be travellin' too, but I doubt there's gonna be anything taking off.
Ahh, you beat me to it Petes. I just saw that about Hurricane Ophelia and thought of you. Yes, it does look like the entire country will be impacted. I think you had mentioned that you have a couple of places? Obviously it all depends on how it makes landfall, but at least it is apparently a fast moving storm. It won't be sitting and spinning over you like Harvey did to Texas.
It is odd seeing a Hurricane in that area and having it gain strength over what is considered cooler waters.
I hope the Gods are kind to you and yours and there is minimal impact.
It looks like, if that landfall forecast is accurate, it will be Dublin that sees a storm surge.
Why do black people commit more crime?
Thanks Lynnette. I think it will be late today (Sunday) before we're definite where this thing's going to arrive. But yes, if it veers a few miles east it will go up the Irish sea and potentially impact both my places. One forecast has 200 km/h winds on Irish Sea coasts and a 2 meter storm surge for Dublin which is more than an enough to cause coastal flooding on a few vulnerable hotspots.
It won't be the apocalyptic sort of stuff we saw in the Caribbean but will certainly be a threat to property and possibly to life and limb. Plus, I have this theory about those palm trees in the Caribbean evolving to cope with being bent in half ;-) Our trees are more of the "snapping" variety, plus that late autumn I was crowing about means the trees still have all their leaves for maximum drag.
I gather this is the furthest east Atlantic hurricane ever recorded, and it only loses its Category 3 storm status later today (hopefully). Ironically, beyond the edge of this thing in Britain they're expecting balmy weather with utterly unseasonal 25°C temps.
Marcus, I presume you've come across <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMUduwZdrDs>Göran Adamson</a>?
Oops. I mean Göran Adamson.
[Lynnette] "Why do black people commit more crime?"
Interesting. I've come across that Sargon youtuber a fair bit lately. He spends some time deriding progressives, but always with a closely reasoned argument. He seems to be one of those more thoughtful conservatives that are springing up all over social media.
I listened to all of that vid and would be in broad agreement. It's not that different from stuff I've come across before.
Actually, I take that back. I've no idea if he's a conservative. I just know he's not as loopy as the progressive lunatic fringe. I shouldn't label someone "conservative" just for not being batshit insane ;-)
Aha. Just fell across the first Sargon video that I had seen earlier this year. Very sacrilegious about the Trump whinge fest. And very, very funny ;-)
Ok, I gotta stop watching him. Too much schadenfreude all at one time aint't good for man.
Plus, I have this theory about those palm trees in the Caribbean evolving to cope with being bent in half ;-)
I think you are right there. What was really scary was the video out of the Caribbean which showed, that despite that adaptation, those palm trees were bowled over like matchsticks.
Although I suppose that saturated ground would play a role in the integrity of their root system leading to easier blow down.
I would hope that Ireland will have sturdier buildings to withstand extreme winds. The flooding, loss of power, and possible debris from downed trees will be the most critical things.
I listened to all of that vid and would be in broad agreement.
Me too. I think he, and others who have made this point, are correct when they say that a strong family structure and support system is very important to success. Poverty itself is not the entire reason for a higher crime rate in the black community, because as he points out other communities, such as Hispanic, also have a higher poverty rate, yet their crime rates are not as high.
I will have to watch the other videos later. I have a play today. And one of these days I will have to put up a new post, if only to restart the comments section. lol!
Shorthands has made this week's version of the ‘President's Weekly Address’ all about ‘THE FLAG’. (on YouTube) The move against the NFL was subtle (when have we ever known Shorthands to be subtle), but rather it was explicit. FoxNews Sunday has obliged by featuring it on their primetime Sunday morning show.
It remains to be seen if the players can continue to kneel during the national anthem, or if the NFL will be obliged to kneel before its master.
Wednesday!
On a more substantive level… I've been noticing the large number of issues Shorthands has engaged himself upon recently, only to then punt the issues to Congress. The Iranian/Joint Plan agreement is but the most recent example. We're all aware, I think, of his drive to escape responsibility for anything. He doesn't want to be associated with the work so long as he can Tweet after it's all over about how he gets all the glory. (No glory, he can delete any tweets on any matter that doesn't work out for him, as Luther Strange learned after he lost his bid for Senator to Roy Moore.)
It has occurred to me that this tracks along with one of his historical escapes from disaster. Back in the 80's resurgence of gambling in Atlantic City Shorthands got himself overextended, sold a bunch of stock to unsuspecting investors to cover his own money invested and then declared bankruptcy on his casinos (and this was during a period when it was thought that it should be almost impossible to lose money on gambling in Atlantic City). The investors got cleaned, but, more tellingly, the lenders were also about to get cleaned when Shorthands made them a proposal. He'd rent his name to the casinos that were over-leveraged (he got paid a monthly half million dollars as I recall), and he'd turn over management to the bankers who could put somebody in there to try to recover the business. He got to retrieve his investment up front; his stockholders got cleaned out.
The lenders took him up on it. (He's been poison in American banking circles ever since.)
Well, the bankers eventually closed out their loans in an orderly manner. They took some losses, but they didn't get cleaned out on the loans.
More importantly, the casinos remained open and the Trump name remained up over the doors. His public image remained mostly unblemished. He threatened to invoke a disaster and made the bankers bail him out of it to protect their own interests.
I think he's now trying to do the same thing with Congress. Threaten disasters on all fronts, make them fix it for him (like he's tried to make China fix his North Korean problem), and then he'll tweet himself the credit for getting it fixed.
Problem is, this Republican Congress is dysfunctional. China didn't fix North Korea for him. This may not end well either.
Correction, that was supposed to read as "The move against the NFL was not subtle…."
I am watching Fareed Zakaria interview Hillary Clinton. It is so refreshing to again listen to a politician who can string two coherent sentences together.
I actually might have to buy her book. Yes, I know this interview is free advertising for that book, but she isn't doing anything anyone else hasn't done.
He has just asked her why she stayed with Bill Clinton. She says it was hard, but they had a long history together and she still had feelings for him.
He also asked her if she felt that Vladimir Putin interfered in the election because he held a grudge against her. She took a pass on that saying that she felt Putin was attacking the United States and democracy as a whole rather than just her. She felt he was trying to sow division within our country and is not finished.
*sigh*
She would have made a genuinely intelligent and hard working president who would have advocated for her country. Instead we have a fake president who advocates for the wealthier segment of our country at the expense of the most vulnerable and sows division where ever he goes.
She was always a lousy campaigner though. She even looked uncomfortable most of the time.
The investors got cleaned, but, more tellingly, the lenders were also about to get cleaned when Shorthands made them a proposal. He'd rent his name to the casinos that were over-leveraged (he got paid a monthly half million dollars as I recall), and he'd turn over management to the bankers who could put somebody in there to try to recover the business. He got to retrieve his investment up front; his stockholders got cleaned out.
The lenders took him up on it. (He's been poison in American banking circles ever since.)
Which begs the question of why anyone would trust this man again? He is the classic con artist. He and Bernie Madoff would get along great.
She even looked uncomfortable most of the time.
She talked about that too. It had a great deal to do with her defenses being up after being attacked so many times. She also admitted that she was not "a good fit" for this reality TV kind of era.
Okay, gotta run. Later...
"Which begs the question of why anyone would trust this man again?"
Because he played the role of a business genius on a sur-reality television show (on NBC) for ten years.
Pete: "You seem to veer dangerously close to assuming that all interracial crimes are race hate crimes. I doubt that's supportable."
Wut?
Where'dya get that idea from?
I never said anything of that sort. Quotes please.
I'm sure most fatal shootings in the USA is down to spur of the moment crime. Robberies taken a bit far, feelz gettin' a bit too hurt, shootin' for the lulz, gangland shooters gettin' it on with the kidz slingin' dope at the next block over, etc.
But the facts are that black shooters kill way more whites than white shooters kill blacks, and this is in absolute numbers(2,2 more often), So when taking into account that whites are 5 times more numerous than blacks (2.2 * 5 = 11 btw) it REALLY begs the question wether blacks in the USA should protest ethnic gun violence. Which is what BLM is all about.
Remember here that my starting point in this whole debate was not some racist anti-black storyline, it was wether or not Trump would "win" against the kneeling black ball-tossers. I still say he will. They will snap to and stand to attention, bet that.
#whitelivesmatter
#stopkillinguswhites
#justicefortheunnameddeadwhites
"So when taking into account that whites are 5 times more
numerous than blacks…"
Meaning, if they were picking targets entirely at random, blacks would kill five times as many whites as they kill blacks on account of there are five times as many white targets. However, the actual number is only 2.2 times as many. Blacks preferentially target other blacks rather than random targets, or rather than picking on whites, in fact they tend to avoid picking white targets.
Pete: "Marcus, I presume you've come across <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMUduwZdrDs>Göran Adamson</a>?"
Interesting.
But in the name of Joseph Stalin: no man no poblem.
Why take in alien cultures to begin with? Only to try and fail at molding them into our culture - which hasn't happened yet in any so called multicultural space?
Why not just say this is ours, you have yours, stay there. We'll help ya'll if ya face hardships, but we'll do so in your own homelands. Do not come to ours. Cause we don't charist the change ya'll bring with ya.
And, before you go there, Shorthands is not waving the flag at his white supporters in defense of the white folks right to keep black folks from killing one another. Ain't nobody fool enough to believe that's what he's all about.
Lee: "Meaning, if they were picking targets entirely at random, blacks would kill five times as many whites as they kill blacks on account of there are five times as many white targets. However, the actual number is only 2.2 times as many. Blacks preferentially target other blacks rather than random targets, or rather than picking on whites, in fact they tend to avoid picking white targets."
Doubt it's much abuot thought through avoidance. Prolly more that the rival gang sellin' dope at some other streetcorner ALSO happens to be black.
Black on black murder is indeed the very worst violent problem ya'll have over there. Which makes it all the more hypocritical for groups like BLM who are blaming whitey to get so much support.
#whitelivesmatter
#wearefedup
#stopkillingus
Ophelia only got downgraded to post-tropical status a couple of hours ago. The thirty mile wide eye is gone, but this sucker is still looking worryingly well-formed as it approaches the 45th parallel.
"Which makes it all the more hypocritical for groups like BLM who
are blaming whitey to get so much support."
I don't get the connection you seem to think you're making. I'll not declare it to be a non sequitor until I'm sure, but…
Simplified, probably over-simplified, but that's gonna be necessary to sharpen the point and avoid extraneous arguments here… The BLM movement is a protest against cops shooting unarmed black men in the back (two specific examples come to mind immediately from recent phone videos that the cops weren't able to confiscate and that managed to go public). Some black gangster shooting at his business competition in another setting on another day does not justify the cop shooting a different, unarmed black guy in the back, one who's obviously not threatening any other black folks.
I don't see the connection you think you see.
"…black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to
be shot and killed by police officers.…unarmed black Americans
[are] five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and
killed by a police officer.
WashingtonPost (emphasis added)
Let's see now, blacks are 2.2 times as likely to shoot a white guy as the reverse, white guy shoots black guy. In response to that (presumably in response to that) cops are 2.5 times more likely to shoot a black to death (overall).
But, if the black guy's unarmed, he's at a five times higher risk of getting shot than an unarmed white guy.
Well now, as we can all see, Shorthands just doesn't have any choice in the matter. The American cop's inalienable right to shoot down unarmed black men at five times the rate they shoot down unarmed white guys simply must be defended by attacking the NFL. There's simply no other choice for him.
And, let's keep in mind… Black folks shoot fewer white folks than would result from simple random chance in target selection, they preferentially select away from shooting white folks.
White folks shoot more black folks than would result from simple random chance in target selection; white folks preferentially select to shoot more black folks than would result from random chance.
Shorthands obviously needs to vigorously protect this discrepancy and make sure it's maintained, even reinforced, so's to Make America Great Again.
[Chumpy @ Sun Oct 15, 12:32:00 pm]: "Meaning, if they were picking targets entirely at random, blacks would kill five times as many whites as they kill blacks on account of there are five times as many white targets. However, the actual number is only 2.2 times as many."
That's wrong, although the error may be in yore sentence construction rather than the stat.
[Chumpy @ Sun Oct 15, 01:38:00 pm]: "White folks shoot more black folks than would result from simple random chance in target selection; white folks preferentially select to shoot more black folks than would result from random chance."
And that's wrong too. Don't know if it yer maths or yore reading comprehension. (Don't much care neither).
"The American cop's inalienable right to shoot down unarmed black men at five times the rate they shoot down unarmed white guys simply must be defended by attacking the NFL."
So when they stood for the anthem in the Obama era was it to celebrate black guys' rights to shoot people (mostly each other) at five times the rate of any other demographic?
Assuming those crime statistic correlate to number of interactions with the police generally, then why wouldn't you expect five times as many accidents to occur? Unfortunate, but not necessarily an indicator of racism. The same circumstances that make black guys hugely more likely to be shot in general adds to their risk of being shot by police.
And for those who don't agree ... care to explain why a black police officer is 3.3 times more likely to shoot his gun than a white one?
"…care to explain why a black police officer is 3.3 times more likely
to shoot his gun…"
A black officer is more likely to draw the ‘less desirable’ beats and ‘less desirable’ shifts and much less likely get the promotions which would move him (or her) up the ranks and out of day to day contact with real crime. That may or may not be changing these days (I've heard it argued both ways). But, if it is true it's not changing fast enough to overcome the ingrained ‘facts on the ground’ as the military calls them.
[Lynnette]: "I am watching Fareed Zakaria interview Hillary Clinton. It is so refreshing to again listen to a politician who can string two coherent sentences together... He has just asked her why she stayed with Bill Clinton. She says it was hard, but they had a long history together and she still had feelings for him."
And you actually believe that drivel? Hillary's interest in Bill was of the same nature as Bernie Madoff's "long history" with his investors.
She's right, though, to be diverting attention from the other cash cow sleazebag she failed to leave until she was forced to this week -- Harvey Weinstein. Gotta love all those women coming out denouncing him now after they've made their millions. I've no doubt that pervert ruined plenty of young lives, but the ones coming out all outraged now are the ones that could've done something to stop him. Why are they talking now about changing the culture in that supposed liberal bastion of Hollywood -- they made their livelihood out of it!
"although the error may be in yore sentence construction
rather than the stat."
I have chosen to use Marcus’ offered stats. You may disagree with his stats if you please; I don't care. I figure to use his stats when directing comments to him (where possible) to avoid arguments over the raw numbers instead of over the trends they show.
[Chumpy]: "A black officer is more likely to draw the ‘less desirable’ beats and ‘less desirable’ shifts"
Ok, I got it. Racism makes black cops shoot people, just like it makes black guys shoot each other. Gotcha.
Gotta wonder if there's anything this all-encompassing racist theory can't explain. Maybe the LIGO announcement tomorrow is about how racism makes black holes crash into each other.
That's a serious dose of brainwashing you got there.
"And that's wrong too."
No, that's not wrong.
(All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.)
Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white.
(729 × 14.712+% = 107)
Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107.
Next figure 729 random black people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 622 white people and the rest black.
(729 × 85.287+% = 622)
Actually black folks shot 500 white folks. 500 < 622.
"I have chosen to use Marcus’ offered stats."
Yeah, maybe a good idea. Even though they're wrong, at least he knows how to use a calculator.
"That's a serious dose of brainwashing you got there."
The history is accurate, it's even acknowledged in your chosen source. I quote:
"In fact, Jim Fife [a key researcher in this area], when he first noted
30 years ago that black NYPD officers were twice or three times as
likely to shoot, faced a lot of criticism, even though he also said
they’re working in different environments."
Your chosen researcher continued to say that:
"I don’t have the luxury of sort of explaining away that finding."
That could mean he didn't find the same sort of discrimination still obtaining today, or it could mean his data wasn't specific and detailed enough to address that question.
You seem to think I might be embarrassed by having been interrupted during my keypunching and then having picked up again in the wrong spot, used the wrong number on that last operation.
Well, it so happens that I was, for a few minutes. I'm long over it. Apparently you are not.
It's kinda like your spelling fixation, there's a natural tendency towards pettiness that overcomes you when you're losing the bigger argument.
It's another one of your ‘tells’.
"So when they stood for the anthem in the Obama era…"
I think it was because they had though of no reason to not stand. I don't think it had anything to do with Obama or the black on black crime rate.
I think some cell phone videos pissed some of them off. I think Colin Kaepernick was telling the truth when he said he was protesting the tendency for police officers to shoot down unarmed black men and keep on getting away with it. (Since then Shorthands has done his dead level best to make it be about something else--he has largely succeeded with his white redneck audience. He has obviously succeeded with you as well.)
"You seem to think I might be embarrassed by having been interrupted during my keypunching and then having picked up again in the wrong spot, used the wrong number on that last operation. Well, it so happens that I was, for a few minutes. I'm long over it."
Oh yeah, clearly long over it ... that's why you've given us that long and laboured explanation of what went wrong several times. LOL.
"…that's why you've given us that long and laboured explanation…"
That was only one sentence, and not one of my longer ones.
The ‘tell’ is on; you're nervous about your larger argument. You should be; you're losing badly.
"Since then Shorthands has done his dead level best to make it be about something else--he has largely succeeded with his white redneck audience. He has obviously succeeded with you as well."
As you noted already, I managed to conclude they were idiots all on my own. Shorthands is an idiot too ... for dragging the office of presidency into it. For a born and bred gazillionaire that preznit of yores is severely lacking in class. (Not that rich people are classy, but they do tend to put on that affectation).
"I managed to conclude they were idiots all on my own."
That may or may not be true. If it's true it's irrelevant. You've not been making the argument that they were idiots. You've been making the argument that Shorthands wants made, i.e. that whether or not they stand for the anthem has to do with their political affiliations (Obama or America in the case of Shorthands; in your case Obama or an unspecified alternative, one that is anti-Obama, but not otherwise specified).
It is kinda odd I think, nine months into Shorthands administration and he and his dedicated Trumpkins, and also Petes, who claims to not be a dedicated Trumpkin but…. They're all still fixated on Obama. He just keeps coming up in their thinking and arguments (Hillary too, but less than Obama.)
I think it's ‘cause what they're against is mostly what ties them together. Without being jointly ‘against’ they got nothin’ in common, or not enough to keep them together.
[Chump]: "No, that's not wrong. (All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015.) Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random... Next figure 729 random black people decide to kill one person selected at random..."
Uh, Marcus's source never mentions 729 people of either race. And why on earth would you take the same number of white and black people as random killers when that's obviously not remotely in proportion.
Marcus's article also has some internal consistency problems. It says 2,574 whites were killed by other whites, and 229 blacks killed by whites. That means w-on-b is 8% and w-on-w is 92% which does not accord with the figure of 81% given.
Also, those stats include Hispanics as whites (and thus Hispanic gang crimes which make up a large proportion), whereas other stats which break it out differently give different results.
"Marcus's source never mentions 729 people of either race."
I presume you noticed the equations and chose not to understand them nor their connection to the argument. Got us another Petes' stupid goin’ on. Means you're about outta stuff to bitch ‘bout. It's a clear ‘tell’
Well, everybody else gets it. So, I'll just leave you out there.
[Chumopy]: "It is kinda odd I think... They're all still fixated on Obama. He just keeps coming up in their thinking and arguments (Hillary too, but less than Obama.)"
I wouldn't call it a fixation but I think I can explain it for ya anyway. When analysing the whinge fest, it is instructive to see what is different between Obama and Trump. One of the possible conclusions, dismaying though it is, is that the whingers are racists.
"I presume you noticed the equations and chose not to understand them nor their connection to the argument."
That's correct. I noticed you said: "All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015". I further noticed that was a lie.
" One of the possible conclusions…"
You've been makin’ some wild leaps tryin’ to get there, so I don't believe you'd be anywhere near dismayed to be able to finally be able to make it to your so obviously desired destination.
You know where you wanna go. You ain't figured out how to get there yet. You're not gonna be dismayed if you manage to pull it off. Ain't nobody buyin’ that one.
"I noticed you said: ‘All numbers resulting from Marcus'
chosen source, year 2015’. I further noticed that was a lie."
500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result. Sometimes also called a ‘sum’, but colloquially at least, it's a result. Not a lie. But, you already knew that. You're reachin’. You're gettin’ pathetic.
[Chumpy]: "The history is accurate, it's even acknowledged in your chosen source. I quote: ...black NYPD officers were twice or three times as likely to shoot... even though he also said they’re working in different environments."
Chumpy, it seems to me yore lyin' habits have become so ingrained that y'all are presentin' as evidence things that don't match what ya said. And you expect people to believe you?
Let's remember what YOU said: "A black officer is more likely to draw the ‘less desirable’ beats and ‘less desirable’ shifts".
Seems to me you got quite a nasty racist streak to ya.
Nope, that wasn't good enough to fool anybody. It wasn't good enough to draw a response. You'll have to try again. You gotta do better than that if you want keep us engaged, or even entertained.
[Chumpy]: "500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result."
So you took the total number of whites killed by blacks, added to the blacks killed by whites, divided by the proportion of the black population ... and presented that as the propensity for whites to kill blacks?
Seriously. Are you a fucking moron? We've had a hundred posts on why that's nonsense. YA EVEN LECTURED MARCUS ON SOMETHING SIMILAR YORESELF.
Christ almighty, ya can't be reasoned with.
"It wasn't good enough to draw a response."
I guess it did get you an admonition that you'll have to do better, but that's not the sort of response you were lookin’ for, so….
"…and presented that as the propensity for whites to kill blacks?"
No. But, you already knew that too. Still reachin’.
I'll point out to our audience that you did take another wild swing at the racist thing. You're really wantin’ to get there somehow. Ya know where ya wanna go, just don't know yet how to get there.
Quaere Petes:
You keep making wild ass assertions that you know are not true. Does this work on your average Irishman back home? Is that why keep thinkin’ it'll work here?
On iPad , can't be arsed formatting...
---------------------------------------------------------
"…and presented that as the propensity for whites to kill blacks?"
No. But, you already knew that too. Still reachin'
---------------------------------------------------------
And I knew that how? Cos ya wouldn't say what ya thought it meant when I asked ya, hundreds of posts ago? And still won't. So, I'll tell ya what I told ya last time -- it's meaningless. Always was, still is. Yore maths problems ain't just with the calculator. But that we DID know.
"And I knew that how?"
Lee C. @ Fri Oct 13, 09:47:00 am
Lee C. @ Fri Oct 13, 07:26:00 pm
Lee C. @ Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm
Does this work on your average Irishman back home?
@ Lynnette,
"When analysing the whinge fest, it is instructive to see what is
different between Obama and Trump. One of the possible
conclusions, dismaying though it is, is that the whingers are racists."
Petes @ Sun Oct 15, 03:52:00 pm ↑↑
The logic is a little confuse, if one can call it logic at all.
But,… Does it seem to you that Petes is alleging that supporters of Obama were (are?) probably racists? ‘Cause that's about the only thing I can pull out of this weird construct.
[Petes]: "And I knew that how?"
[Chump]: "Fri Oct 13, 09:47:00 am"
Same calculation. Different numbers. No explanation.
[Chump]: "Fri Oct 13, 07:26:00 pm"
No calculation. No explanation.
[Chump]: "Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm
Same calculation. No explanation.
[Chump]: "Does this work on your average Irishman back home?"
Can't vouch for the average Irishman but yore meaningless shit sure ain't workin' on me.
And my attempted corrections sure ain't workin' on you.
Which brings us to something of an impasse: y'all can't explain what yer tryin' to do, and ya can't understand what ya should be doin'. I guess yore lack of comprehension wins the day. But then, that's why you are The Chump.
LOL.
[Chumpy]: "Does it seem to you that Petes is alleging that supporters of Obama were (are?) probably racists?"
For the avoidance of doubt, let me clarify it for ya, Chumpy. That's exactly what I'm alleging. Not all of them, mind. Just some.
"Just some."
That doesn't mean much, maybe nothing at all. Obama left office with a favorable rating running near‘bouts 60% if I recall correctly. Among the hundreds of millions of people who'd be included in that 60% it's beyond doubt that some of them would have been racists.
@ Lynnette,
Point above is, the question is still good.
"No explanation."
I think everybody gets it. Probably even you. If not, then everybody gets it except you, and I'll just have to chalk that up to your involuntary ‘possum response’, never to be overcome, and we'll just move along to the next thing.
@ Lynnette,
I think I should go back at that question again. It seemed to me that Petes was working his way up to an allegation that supporters of Obama were probably racists. (Just the way I put it the first time.) That would mean ‘more likely than not’, or ‘more than 50%’, or some equivalent thing.
That what you got out of his otherwise weirdly constructed statement? And, if you draw a different conclusion, what?
[Petes]: "No explanation."
[Chump]: "I think everybody gets it."
LOL. But yore not willin' to set out what it is they're supposed to "get". Frickin' asshat.
[Chump]: "That doesn't mean much, maybe nothing at all."
Means at least as much as yore constant allusions to "Trumpkins".
Ophelia's makin' slightly more rapid progress than forecast. Off the coast of Brittany now, about to enter the Celtic Sea. Only seven hours from landfall and its been unusually calm here all evening. Very mild too, with the sort of very light drizzly rain you can get here in any season. I gather that's because Ophelia is still drawing a stream of air south onto its west side.
We won't feel anything this side of the country until well after landfall, when the nastier eastern edge of the system makes its way up the country. This is still looking hairy -- Ophelia may be post tropical but it currently still has hurricane force winds. The techie weather people say that its upper and mid levels are starting to separate, which means it has begun to dissipate. But it is also now interacting with the jet stream which could actually deepen the sea-level depression.
So as of now we are expecting sustained 85 mph winds, with stronger gusts, coastal storm surges and heavy rain. My sibling has got on a flight from London tonight instead of tomorrow, so should be hunkered down during tomorrow's inevitable travel chaos.
"Means at least as much as yore constant allusions to 'Trumpkins'."
No, it does not. Not even close.
"No, it does not."
Does too ;-)
"Does too"
Okay then…
@ Lynnette,
Petes is still hanging on to his little rant ‘bout Obama supporters being racists.
This is obviously a bigger deal for him than I'd anticipated.
So…. Never mind the question I asked you. I withdraw the question. Let's just move on to the next thing. This is not important.
"This is obviously a bigger deal for him than I'd anticipated."
Howdja figure that Chumpy? Ya didn't even know about it until minutes ago. Which means I never mentioned it, as I see it as just a fact of life. If ya wanna see a "big deal", go review yore own non-stop bellyachin' about "Trumpkins" since well before the election. Now that is a hard core obsession of y'all's. Been postin' about it non-stop without anyone even botherin' to acknowledge it, by and large. Gotta wonder what's goin' on with y'all to be so agitated. Go my own theory on that too.
"Howdja figure that Chumpy?"
You're still carryin’ on ‘bout it; reasonably good indicator right there.
Hah, nice try with the little diversion.
Right. Back to reminding "yore audience" about yore figgers at Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm. Just to explain it -- Chumpy got his 729 number by adding the number of white-on-black deaths to the number of black-on-white deaths.
Then he multiplied by the proportion of blacks in the population, to get a value. He won't tell us what that value is supposed to signify, but here's his exact statement:
"Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white.
(729 × 14.712+% = 107)
Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
Now, if I was a statistician, I'd be wondering: what the hell has the number of black-on-white deaths got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out on this one? He dudn't seem to want to take it from me that it's total hogwash.
The centre of Ophelia's circulation has just crossed the 50th parallel. That puts it less than 2 degrees south of Ireland's mainland. I could be wrong but it looks to me like it is further west than forecast, but then there are folks saying that it will track more northeast from here. Don't think it makes much difference to the battering on offer. Anyway, we'll know in a couple of hours.
Petes is now trying to rope other folks into fighting his fights for him.
"Take it up with Lynnette."
Petes @ Sat Oct 14, 06:51:00 pm ↑↑
"Anybody else able to help…?"
Petes @ Mon Oct 16, 12:31:00 am ↑↑
Curious development. Reminds me a bit of Shorthands trying to get the Chinese to solve his North Korean problem for him.
"Petes is now trying to rope other folks into fighting his fights for him."
Think of it more as a charity endeavour. Can't get ya to accept correction from me, so hopin' someone else will come to yore aid.
Of course, y'all could just answer the question:
what the hell has the number of black-on-white deaths got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
"…black-on-white deaths…"
I presume you mean the number of black on white murders.
Just coming up to 9am, Ophelia arrived bang on schedule. Power out in parts of south west Ireland already. Storm centre is about 50 miles offshore. I "snapped" this nice sunrise photo.
Coming up on midday. Still nothing worse than a bit of violent tree shaking in this neck of the woods. Lots of trees down in the south west and 100k houses without power.
1pm. Now things are starting to shake a little. Smaller branches snapping on the trees etc. The storm has progressed halfway up the west coast. They're have 100+ mph gusts over there, and now 150k houses without power. So far we are getting away very lightly over this side, although mid-afternoon is projected to be worst. A few injuries reported, some people rescued while kite surfing!!! (I hope they get locked up).
Turds flee Kirkuk en masse as Iraqi tanks roll in. Toothless 'ol Uncle Sam says it's just a misunderstanding.
I'm given to understand that the Iraqi forces now approaching Kirkuk are following behind the Shia militias, under the leadership and control of Qassem Suleimani.
No doubt this is to be considered a great victory for the imaginary state of Sunnistan.
Michael J. Totten thinks that ‘toothless ol’ Uncle Sam’ is on Baghdad's side regarding the matter of Kurdish independence.
4pm. Some very battered looking trees outside my window, but nothing's come down yet. Dublin Bay buoy is measuring 80 mph gusts. South west was getting 120 mph gusts earlier. Centre of circulation now moving into the north west. One fatality so far that I know of (driver killed by falling tree).
The LIGO press conference has announced a neutron star merger with counterparts in gamma-, x-ray, optical, near infrared and radio. Light curve observed for a week from decay of synthesised heavy elements. No neutrinos. Press conference resumes after break in a few minutes ... exciting stuff.
5.30 pm. Still blowing, but easing, and the sun is doing its best to come out. A second fatality reported unfortunately.
That LIGO press conference was awesome. From my notes:
Yep, it was the neutron star merger from August 17th. Observed by LIGO, by four space telescopes (Fermi and Integral in gamma-rays, Chandra in x-rays, and Hubble in the optical) and by a hundred other instruments in optical, near-infrared and radio. Distance was 130 Mly in galaxy NGC 4993. Peak luminosity was 200m L_sun. There was a week-long light curve, looking like it peaked after about half a day, from radioactive decay of heavy elements. Based on the efficiency of heavy element production including gold and platinum, it was suggested neutron star mergers could replace supernovae as the supposed main progenitors of heavy elements beyond iron.
Press conference is on a break. Resumes at 4.15pm. EDIT: Q&A started 5pm.
The trend for long author lists on papers continues: the announcement paper for this one has 3,500 authors! :D
"…130 Mly in galaxy NGC 4993. Peak luminosity was 200m L_sun…"
Always of prime importance to Petes that he impress his audience with a jargon-spew. Makes people think he's smart. Well, works on Marcus anyway.
6pm. Ophelia still howling across the north and will hit the west coast of Scotland later tonight. 3 fatalities now -- two crushed cars, and some bloke dealing with a fallen tree managed to kill himself with a chainsaw. A third of a million houses without power.
"Always of prime importance to Petes that he impress his audience with a jargon-spew."
Yeah, well, I am the Great and Wonderful Petes, right? It's ok Chumpy. I understand why yore havin' difficulty bein' gracious. Any update on those figgers? No jargon required.
Ah, yes, ‘those figgers’; perhaps an update of where we left off is appropriate.
"…what the hell has the number of black-on-white deaths got to do
with…
Petes @ Sun Oct 15, 11:22:00 pm (emphasis by Petes)
"I presume you mean the number of black on white murders."
Lee C. @ Mon Oct 16, 02:28:00 am
I got no response. So, maybe we should do it another way.
So…. Tell us, Petes, just what the hell are ‘black-on-white deaths’? And what was that number?
Sheesh gone for a day and I'm way behind. *sigh*
It looks like Ophelia has taken a little more westerly course than they originally had predicted, but Ireland still battered. I'm glad to hear that you have minimal damage, so far, Petes. I hope that remains so.
"I'm way behind."
Yes, Petes has been both prolific and entertaining during your brief business obligated absence.
[Chumpy]: "Does it seem to you that Petes is alleging that supporters of Obama were (are?) probably racists?"
[Petes]: For the avoidance of doubt, let me clarify it for ya, Chumpy. That's exactly what I'm alleging. Not all of them, mind. Just some.
Maybe. I doubt that racism is only a white prerogative.
But you don't have to be a supporter of Obama to dislike Trump or the extreme right that has supported him. Nor do you have to be a racist. Authoritarianism is to be fought on every level, otherwise you run the risk of a Nazi Germany scenario. I have nothing but admiration for the likes of John McCain who has spoken out so eloquently for the checks and balances that were set up by our founding fathers.
Hmmm, been an hour now, little over an hour. It begins to appear that Petes requires a little more assistance in remembering just where he came up with this brand new jargon, this new term of his very own coinage, i.e. ‘black-on-white deaths’, which term he now refuses to identify.
It all began here:
"…here's his exact statement:
‘Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person
selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black
people and the rest white.
(729 × 14.712+% = 107)
Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107.’
"Now, if I was a statistician, I'd be wondering: what the hell has the
number of black-on-white deaths got to do with the random chance
of whites killin' anybody???
"Anybody else able to help Chumpy out on this one?"
Petes @ Sun Oct 15, 11:22:00 pm (emphasis by Petes)
Well, anybody wanna try to help him out on this one? Somebody wanna choose a definition for the fat boy to use, tell Petes what he shall henceforth mean by the term ‘black-on-white deaths’ and what will be the number that he shall henceforth associate with his new terminology?
I'm given to understand that the Iraqi forces now approaching Kirkuk are following behind the Shia militias, under the leadership and control of Qassem Suleimani.
I hadn't heard about this. It sounds like Iran is supporting Baghdad's desire to smother the Kurds' attempts at an independent state.
Hmmm...probably not a good move for Sunnistan.
"It sounds like Iran is supporting Baghdad's desire to smother
the Kurds…"
Yeah, aside from Iran being twitchy about their own Kurds, there's Tehran's desire to establish a land route under their own Shia control from Tehran to Beirut. An independent Kurdistan arising from the KRG areas could compromise that land corridor. And it could encourage an independent Kurdish state arising from the fragments that were once Syria, which could compromise Tehran's ‘Shia Cresent’ even further.
Not exactly good news for any imagined Sunnistan state arising, but I reckon Z is tribal for Arabs over Kurds in preference to his desired Sunni state.
[Chump]: "this new term of his very own coinage, i.e. ‘black-on-white deaths’, which term he now refuses to identify."
Now, if ya weren't a total moron, ya would check my original post wherein I used that term twice, explainin' where it came from on first usage. Bolded it both times specifically so that it couldn't be mistaken for anything else. Ya know this of course. Here -- allow me to link to that post of Sun Oct 15, 11:22:00 pm, just so "yore audience" know what a time-wastin' moron you are. They know that too of course. Yore not the only person who knows yore bein' an asshole. I suspect ya even know that.
"I'm glad to hear that you have minimal damage, so far, Petes. I hope that remains so."
Thanks Lynnette. Has reduced to an averagely blowy night now. Fair bit of damage around the rest of the country, and about 10% of all dwellings without power. But I guess it could have been worse. Rainfall amounts weren't too bad and, at least on the more populous east coast, the height of the wind coincided with low tide which was a major bonus.
[Lynnette]: "I doubt that racism is only a white prerogative."
I very much doubt it too.
[Lynnette]: "But you don't have to be a supporter of Obama to dislike Trump or the extreme right that has supported him."
True. By the same token, I suspect the large majority of Trump supporters dislike the extreme right too.
"…if…ya would check my original post…"
I not only checked that post, I read it fairly closely, I even quoted from it extensively when I invited folks to go ahead and provide you the assistance you'd been begging them for. (@ Mon Oct 16, 02:22:00 pm ↑↑)
That post does not define your new jargon. (If it had, you'd have repeated the definition for effect.).
Even if it did (and it doesn't), you still skipped the part about what solid number might be associated with your newly coined term. We'd still need that.
Trump doesn't dislike the ‘extreme right’; he plays to them, conspicuously. This is not a deal-breaker for the remainder of his supporters. They go right along with it, so they don't ‘dislike’ it too badly to join in close association.
@ Lynnette,
Both Trump and Mitch McConnell have made comments today suggesting that the Republicans' proposed tax cuts for the wealthy might get postponed until next year. I'd take that as an indication that things aren't going well for them in their backroom negotiations. They'd never try to ram through tax cuts for the rich in an election year if they had an opportunity to do it the year before.
Side note to Lynnette and Marcus:
Petes' insistance that he's already provided a definition (and maybe even a solid number if he gets around to making the claim that he gave it a number) both of which he will continue to refuse to give us lest he be quoted on it, this is simply about maintaining deniablility for when his argument doesn't hold up later.
And, before we have to get to deep into this particular piece of evasion:
"I used that term twice, explainin' where it came from
on first usage…"
Where it came from is not a definition.
[Moron]: "this new term of his very own coinage, ... which term he now refuses to identify"
[Moron]: "Where it came from is not a definition."
Y'all didn't ask for a definition. Y'all asked for an identification. I gave ya one. Furthermore, "yore audience" ain't stupid enough to be impressed by y'all askin' for a definition for somethin' ya refused to define yoreself, to wit:
[Petes]: "I noticed you said: ‘All numbers resulting from Marcus' chosen source, year 2015’. I further noticed that was a lie."
[Moron @ Sun Oct 15, 04:03:00 pm]: "500 + 229 = 729. The 729 is a result. Sometimes also called a ‘sum’, but colloquially at least, it's a result. Not a lie. But, you already knew that. You're reachin’. You're gettin’ pathetic."
Let me return the favour then. The things you add to produce a 'sum' are sometimes called 'summands'. The identification you requested is that it is one of those summands. If y'all are too much of a moron to figger out which one, then simply try them both in turn and see what happens. Use the same definition y'all used when ya selected them from "Marcus' chosen source". Yore welcome.
Before the resident moron now pathetically continues to pretend not to be able to identify the numbers he used himself, let me short circuit him by pointing out that the labels used don't matter. One could just as easily have said, at Sun Oct 15, 11:22:00 pm, when pointing out his hogwash:
Right. Back to reminding "yore audience" about yore figgers at Sun Oct 15, 03:07:00 pm. Just to explain it -- Chumpy got his 729 number by adding 500 to 229.
Then he multiplied by the proportion of blacks in the population, to get a value. He won't tell us what that value is supposed to signify, but here's his exact statement:
"Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people and the rest white.
(729 × 14.712+% = 107)
Actually white folks shot 229 black folks. 229 > 107."
Now, if I was a statistician, I'd be wondering: what the hell has the 500 and the 229 got to do with the random chance of whites killin' anybody???
Anybody else able to help Chumpy out on this one? He dudn't seem to want to take it from me that it's total hogwash.
"Y'all didn't ask for a definition. Y'all asked for an identification."
I used those two words interchangeably. There was no significant difference in meaning.
"Somebody wanna choose a definition for the fat boy to use…"
Lee C. @ Mon Oct 16, 02:22:00 pm ↑↑
You knew that; you know that now; you still refuse to supply the definition, identify the meaning, of the term. That is what it is. We're here because you insist on maintaining deniablility. So be it. You can't even bring yourself to write down a number, one number and you can't bring yourself to just do it.
I don't consider this to be my problem. I am perfectly happy to let you swing in this wind.
When you ask for ‘figgers’ in the future, I'll only need remind you that you left it here.
Ah, you did a follow up comment I see. There is one point there that I will address.
"He won't tell us what that value [107] is supposed to signify."
Ah, but I did tell them what that value was supposed to signify.
"Figure 729 random white people decide to kill one person
selected at random. Random chance is they kill 107 black people…"
(You apparently have that involuntary ‘possum response’ going on, where you get totally stupid, but that's your problem, not mine, and not theirs.)
And, just to put to bed one of your future tangents…
"You knew that; you know that now…"
And, even if you want to keep trying to pretend that you aren't just hiding behind a semantic evasion, it's beyond anyone's doubt that you know now I intended that to be a demand that you supply the definition, and the numerical value you have selected for that definition.
You know; you refuse be tied down to it. So be it.
No problem, moron. I'm totally happy to leave it there. I'm also happy to remind "yore audience" where this all started, with your dopy remonstrations to Marcus:
"Looks like you need a little help doing your numbers. Whites are 65% of the population; blacks are 13%. 65 ÷ 13 = 5. Blacks kill whites = 504. Whites kill blacks = 229. 504 ÷ 229 = 2.2. Ratio of blacks kill whites/whites kill blacks is smaller than ration whites to blacks." (Wed Oct 11, 12:03:00 pm)
And here we are folks, well over 300 posts later, with the moron claiming to be unable to connect my term "black-on-white deaths" with his term "blacks kill whites". After all his calculator malfunctions and switchin' numbers around, that's what it comes down to. He can't explain his numbers (or rather won't, 'cos it's finally dawned on him somewhere along the way that they make no sense). So he'll waste your time and mine till kingdom come tryin' to avoid bein' shown up. He'll lie and obfuscate at any cost to avoid that conclusion. He's been there a hundred times before, ain't no difference this time.
QED. Ciao.
Post a Comment