Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #435028 > unrolled thread

OT: Shocking news

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-11 23:34 -0500
    Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-11 22:30 -0800
      Re: OT: Shocking news Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 09:37 +0000
        Re: OT: Shocking news Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 09:59 +0000
        Re: OT: Shocking news Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-12 10:23 +0000
          Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 07:06 -0500
            Re: OT: Shocking news Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-12 12:21 +0000
      Re: OT: Shocking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-12 03:54 -0800
        Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 07:14 -0500
          Re: OT: Shocking news "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2016-11-12 11:35 -0500
            Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 12:51 -0500
            Re: OT: Shocking news krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 18:26 -0500
          Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-12 09:50 -0800
            Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 13:02 -0500
              Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-13 13:48 -0800
                Re: OT: Shocking news whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 21:07 -0800
        Re: OT: Shocking news Mike Perkins <spam@spam.com> - 2016-11-12 17:19 +0000
        Re: OT: Shocking news bulegoge@columbus.rr.com - 2016-11-12 14:50 -0800
      Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 07:40 -0500
        Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-12 08:33 -0800
          Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 13:13 -0500
            Re: OT: Shocking news M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2016-11-12 16:09 -0500
              Re: OT: Shocking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-12 19:29 -0800
                Re: OT: Shocking news M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2016-11-13 12:07 -0500
                  Re: OT: Shocking news Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2016-11-13 21:00 +0000
          Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 13:15 -0500
            Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-12 10:53 -0800
              Re: OT: Shocking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-12 19:34 -0800
      Re: OT: Shocking news bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 06:35 -0800
        Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-12 08:38 -0800
          Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 13:23 -0500
            Re: OT: Shocking news krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 18:29 -0500
              Re: OT: Shocking news M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2016-11-13 12:10 -0500
                Re: OT: Shocking news krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-13 18:30 -0500
      Re: OT: Shocking news "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 13:46 -0500
        Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-12 10:58 -0800
          Re: OT: Shocking news bulegoge@columbus.rr.com - 2016-11-12 14:51 -0800
            Re: OT: Shocking news "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2016-11-18 18:27 -0500
          Re: OT: Shocking news "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2016-11-18 18:25 -0500
        Re: OT: Shocking news Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2016-11-12 13:30 -0800
          Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-12 13:36 -0800
            Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 16:44 -0500
              Re: OT: Shocking news "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 14:07 -0800
                Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 17:18 -0500
                Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 17:26 -0500
                  Re: OT: Shocking news "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 01:48 -0800
                    Re: OT: Shocking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-13 07:01 -0800
                    Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-13 11:11 -0500
                      Re: OT: Shocking news M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2016-11-13 12:28 -0500
                      Re: OT: Shocking news "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 17:11 -0800
                        Re: OT: Shocking news JW <none@dev.null> - 2016-11-14 06:43 -0500
                          Re: OT: Shocking news Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> - 2016-11-14 23:06 +0000
                            Re: OT: Shocking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-14 17:51 -0800
                Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-12 15:25 -0800
                  Re: OT: Shocking news Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2016-11-12 15:39 -0800
                    Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 19:19 -0500
            Re: OT: Shocking news Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 21:56 +0000
            Re: OT: Shocking news Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2016-11-12 17:09 -0500
              Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 17:59 -0500
              Re: OT: Shocking news krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 18:31 -0500
                Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 19:01 -0500
                  Re: OT: Shocking news krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 19:51 -0500
                    Re: OT: Shocking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-12 19:52 -0800
                      Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-13 11:53 -0500
                        Re: OT: Shocking news M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2016-11-13 12:13 -0500
                          Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-13 12:31 -0500
                          Re: OT: Shocking news krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-13 18:33 -0500
              Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 19:07 -0500
          Re: OT: Shocking news "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2016-11-18 18:28 -0500
      Re: OT: Shocking news Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2016-11-12 13:35 -0800
    Re: OT: Shocking news Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2016-11-12 17:04 -0500
      Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 18:09 -0500
        Re: OT: Shocking news bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 18:21 -0500
        Re: OT: Shocking news Bill Martin <wwm@wwmartin.net> - 2016-11-12 19:54 -0800
      Re: OT: Shocking news John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-12 15:28 -0800
        Re: OT: Shocking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-12 20:02 -0800
      Re: OT: Shocking news bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-12 19:59 -0800

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#435139

On 11/12/2016 11:33 AM, John Larkin wrote:

> Of course you don't understand it. That was my point. Hardly anybody
> understands it, but that doesn't inhibit them from trying to control
> it.

Do you? Are you the only one, or are there others? Where can I discover 
this secret knowledge of which all the other intelligent people in the 
world are unable to comprehended?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435183

In article <yZIVz.51559$WD2.28188@fx35.iad>, 
bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net says...
> 
> On 11/12/2016 11:33 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> 
> > Of course you don't understand it. That was my point. Hardly anybody
> > understands it, but that doesn't inhibit them from trying to control
> > it.
> 
> Do you? Are you the only one, or are there others? Where can I discover 
> this secret knowledge of which all the other intelligent people in the 
> world are unable to comprehended?

 Looking at your track record, you don't appear to be the sharpest tool
in the shed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435273

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 8:09:02 AM UTC+11, M Philbrook wrote:
> In article <yZIVz.51559$WD2.28188@fx35.iad>, 
> bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net says...
> > 
> > On 11/12/2016 11:33 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> > 
> > > Of course you don't understand it. That was my point. Hardly anybody
> > > understands it, but that doesn't inhibit them from trying to control
> > > it.
> > 
> > Do you? Are you the only one, or are there others? Where can I discover 
> > this secret knowledge of which all the other intelligent people in the 
> > world are unable to comprehended?
> 
>  Looking at your track record, you don't appear to be the sharpest tool
> in the shed.

Jamie's judgement about who might be the sharpest tool in the shed is not entirely reliable. Intellectually speaking, he's not even a tool - he's of absolutely no use to anybody, except perhaps as an example of what the gullible half-wit might be thinking.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435361

In article <ddf0cf3d-e03f-4741-a715-f0d10342e232@googlegroups.com>, 
bill.sloman@ieee.org says...
> 
> On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 8:09:02 AM UTC+11, M Philbrook wrote:
> > In article <yZIVz.51559$WD2.28188@fx35.iad>, 
> > bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net says...
> > > 
> > > On 11/12/2016 11:33 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Of course you don't understand it. That was my point. Hardly anybody
> > > > understands it, but that doesn't inhibit them from trying to control
> > > > it.
> > > 
> > > Do you? Are you the only one, or are there others? Where can I discover 
> > > this secret knowledge of which all the other intelligent people in the 
> > > world are unable to comprehended?
> > 
> >  Looking at your track record, you don't appear to be the sharpest tool
> > in the shed.
> 
> Jamie's judgement about who might be the sharpest tool in the shed is not entirely reliable. Intellectually speaking, he's not even a tool - he's of absolutely no use to anybody, except perhaps as an example of what the gullible half-wit might be thinking.

It looks like you took a page out of your own biography.

 Its been said experience is a better teacher. Thanks for sharing a 
little of that about yourself.

Jamie

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435406

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 12:07:03 -0500, M Philbrook wrote:

> It looks like you took a page out of your own biography.

Yeah, Sloman projecting again. Gets tiresome after a while.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435140

On 11/12/2016 11:33 AM, John Larkin wrote:

> Of course you don't understand it. That was my point. Hardly anybody
> understands it, but that doesn't inhibit them from trying to control
> it.

This is bordering on some fashion of Rosicrucian/Gnostic esotericism 
type of explanation, John.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435160

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:15:33 -0500, bitrex
<bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 11/12/2016 11:33 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> Of course you don't understand it. That was my point. Hardly anybody
>> understands it, but that doesn't inhibit them from trying to control
>> it.
>
>This is bordering on some fashion of Rosicrucian/Gnostic esotericism 
>type of explanation, John.

High-gain, un-understood chaotic systems are hard to control. The
universe works that way. 

What's impressive is that "experts" think they do understand, and can
control, such systems.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435274

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 5:53:53 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:15:33 -0500, bitrex
> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >On 11/12/2016 11:33 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> >
> >> Of course you don't understand it. That was my point. Hardly anybody
> >> understands it, but that doesn't inhibit them from trying to control
> >> it.
> >
> >This is bordering on some fashion of Rosicrucian/Gnostic esotericism 
> >type of explanation, John.
> 
> High-gain, un-understood chaotic systems are hard to control. The
> universe works that way. 
> 
> What's impressive is that "experts" think they do understand, and can
> control, such systems.

What's even more impressive is that experts sometimes can. John Larkin doesn't know about that kind of stuff, and doesn't realise that there's information out there that he could know if he worked at finding it out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_chaos

What he does know has been spoon fed to him by the Murdoch media, and he doesn't know enough to realise that they aren't entirely reliable.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435083

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 1:30:33 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt 
> >Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean 
> >seriously, who knew?
> >
> 
> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.

Actually they were not wrong, they were delusionally over optimistic. Clinton won everywhere the polls came in comfortably above the MOE, say 4-5% range or more. Then she just happened to lose everywhere the polls fell within the MOE. The major failing of the DNC was selecting a candidate that was predicted to have polling this close when they had others with predicted polling well above Clinton, even O'Malley would have done better.

> 
> Just as so much "science" is wrong.
> 
> Imagine the bunglers and back-stabbers of the Clinton team, who were
> brutally wrong, who confidentally expected over 300 electoral votes,
> who were sure that Pensylvania and Florida and Wisconsin were in the
> bag, managing the economy and government and military of the USA.


Well that's the thing, and getting these f_ck-ups out of government is a good thing.

> 
> Wrongness the the true hallmark of our times.


It's the era of leadership fraud, and it's not just the public sector, the private sector has been operating this way for 40 years now! Society is in deep trouble when it gets cornered into relying on politicians to do anything- they are the most worthless do-nothing bunch of scum to be found anywhere. Now that we're down to the wire on taking real action on CO2 pollution, it's over for mankind, by the time it REALLY becomes obvious to the idiots, we will have tripped into the point of no return, and this will be coming up shortly. 


> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
> 
> lunatic fringe electronics

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435114

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 06:35:16 -0800 (PST),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

>On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 1:30:33 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>> >The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt 
>> >Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean 
>> >seriously, who knew?
>> >
>> 
>> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
>> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
>> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>
>Actually they were not wrong, they were delusionally over optimistic.

There's a difference?

> Clinton won everywhere the polls came in comfortably above the MOE, say 4-5% range or more. Then she just happened to lose everywhere the polls fell within the MOE. The major failing of the DNC was selecting a candidate that was predicted to have polling this close when they had others with predicted polling well above Clinton, even O'Malley would have done better.
>
>> 
>> Just as so much "science" is wrong.
>> 
>> Imagine the bunglers and back-stabbers of the Clinton team, who were
>> brutally wrong, who confidentally expected over 300 electoral votes,
>> who were sure that Pensylvania and Florida and Wisconsin were in the
>> bag, managing the economy and government and military of the USA.
>
>
>Well that's the thing, and getting these f_ck-ups out of government is a good thing.
>
>> 
>> Wrongness the the true hallmark of our times.
>
>
>It's the era of leadership fraud, and it's not just the public sector, the private sector has been operating this way for 40 years now! Society is in deep trouble when it gets cornered into relying on politicians to do anything- they are the most worthless do-nothing bunch of scum to be found anywhere. Now that we're down to the wire on taking real action on CO2 pollution, it's over for mankind, by the time it REALLY becomes obvious to the idiots, we will have tripped into the point of no return, and this will be coming up shortly.

We need a back-to-basics, old-time-morality, MicroEconomics 101
approach to managing society. Anything past that smashes in to the
wrongness, the inability to understand causality in complex chaotic
systems. Experts keep pushing on the wrong nodes and getting
unexpected results.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435144

On 11/12/2016 11:38 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 06:35:16 -0800 (PST),
> bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 1:30:33 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>>>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>>>> seriously, who knew?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
>>> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
>>> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>>
>> Actually they were not wrong, they were delusionally over optimistic.
>
> There's a difference?
>
>> Clinton won everywhere the polls came in comfortably above the MOE, say 4-5% range or more. Then she just happened to lose everywhere the polls fell within the MOE. The major failing of the DNC was selecting a candidate that was predicted to have polling this close when they had others with predicted polling well above Clinton, even O'Malley would have done better.
>>
>>>
>>> Just as so much "science" is wrong.
>>>
>>> Imagine the bunglers and back-stabbers of the Clinton team, who were
>>> brutally wrong, who confidentally expected over 300 electoral votes,
>>> who were sure that Pensylvania and Florida and Wisconsin were in the
>>> bag, managing the economy and government and military of the USA.
>>
>>
>> Well that's the thing, and getting these f_ck-ups out of government is a good thing.
>>
>>>
>>> Wrongness the the true hallmark of our times.
>>
>>
>> It's the era of leadership fraud, and it's not just the public sector, the private sector has been operating this way for 40 years now! Society is in deep trouble when it gets cornered into relying on politicians to do anything- they are the most worthless do-nothing bunch of scum to be found anywhere. Now that we're down to the wire on taking real action on CO2 pollution, it's over for mankind, by the time it REALLY becomes obvious to the idiots, we will have tripped into the point of no return, and this will be coming up shortly.
>
> We need a back-to-basics, old-time-morality, MicroEconomics 101
> approach to managing society. Anything past that smashes in to the
> wrongness, the inability to understand causality in complex chaotic
> systems. Experts keep pushing on the wrong nodes and getting
> unexpected results.

Which results are the ones you want?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435230

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:23:36 -0500, bitrex
<bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 11/12/2016 11:38 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 06:35:16 -0800 (PST),
>> bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 1:30:33 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
>>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>>>>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>>>>> seriously, who knew?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
>>>> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
>>>> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>>>
>>> Actually they were not wrong, they were delusionally over optimistic.
>>
>> There's a difference?
>>
>>> Clinton won everywhere the polls came in comfortably above the MOE, say 4-5% range or more. Then she just happened to lose everywhere the polls fell within the MOE. The major failing of the DNC was selecting a candidate that was predicted to have polling this close when they had others with predicted polling well above Clinton, even O'Malley would have done better.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just as so much "science" is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Imagine the bunglers and back-stabbers of the Clinton team, who were
>>>> brutally wrong, who confidentally expected over 300 electoral votes,
>>>> who were sure that Pensylvania and Florida and Wisconsin were in the
>>>> bag, managing the economy and government and military of the USA.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well that's the thing, and getting these f_ck-ups out of government is a good thing.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrongness the the true hallmark of our times.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's the era of leadership fraud, and it's not just the public sector, the private sector has been operating this way for 40 years now! Society is in deep trouble when it gets cornered into relying on politicians to do anything- they are the most worthless do-nothing bunch of scum to be found anywhere. Now that we're down to the wire on taking real action on CO2 pollution, it's over for mankind, by the time it REALLY becomes obvious to the idiots, we will have tripped into the point of no return, and this will be coming up shortly.
>>
>> We need a back-to-basics, old-time-morality, MicroEconomics 101
>> approach to managing society. Anything past that smashes in to the
>> wrongness, the inability to understand causality in complex chaotic
>> systems. Experts keep pushing on the wrong nodes and getting
>> unexpected results.
>
>Which results are the ones you want?

Prosperity works for me.  Too bad there are 95M who can't find jobs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435364

In article <2d9f2ct9gpjjiaqluadr0m3na5cd5u9h83@4ax.com>, 
krw@somewhere.com says...
> >>
> >>>
> >>> It's the era of leadership fraud, and it's not just the public sector, the private sector has been operating this way for 40 years now! Society is in deep trouble when it gets cornered into relying on politicians to do anything- they are the most worthless do-nothing bunch of scum to be found anywhere. Now that we're down to the wire on taking real action on CO2 pollution, it's over for mankind, by the time it REALLY becomes obvious to the idiots, we will have 
tripped into the point of no return, and this will be coming up shortly.
> >>
> >> We need a back-to-basics, old-time-morality, MicroEconomics 101
> >> approach to managing society. Anything past that smashes in to the
> >> wrongness, the inability to understand causality in complex chaotic
> >> systems. Experts keep pushing on the wrong nodes and getting
> >> unexpected results.
> >
> >Which results are the ones you want?
> 
> Prosperity works for me.  Too bad there are 95M who can't find jobs.
> Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 18:29:20 -0500
> 
> 

 Is that the latest count of those out of work or those that really
want to work?

Jamie

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435444

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 12:10:33 -0500, M Philbrook
<jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> wrote:

>In article <2d9f2ct9gpjjiaqluadr0m3na5cd5u9h83@4ax.com>, 
>krw@somewhere.com says...
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> It's the era of leadership fraud, and it's not just the public sector, the private sector has been operating this way for 40 years now! Society is in deep trouble when it gets cornered into relying on politicians to do anything- they are the most worthless do-nothing bunch of scum to be found anywhere. Now that we're down to the wire on taking real action on CO2 pollution, it's over for mankind, by the time it REALLY becomes obvious to the idiots, we will have 
>tripped into the point of no return, and this will be coming up shortly.
>> >>
>> >> We need a back-to-basics, old-time-morality, MicroEconomics 101
>> >> approach to managing society. Anything past that smashes in to the
>> >> wrongness, the inability to understand causality in complex chaotic
>> >> systems. Experts keep pushing on the wrong nodes and getting
>> >> unexpected results.
>> >
>> >Which results are the ones you want?
>> 
>> Prosperity works for me.  Too bad there are 95M who can't find jobs.
>> Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 18:29:20 -0500
>> 
>> 
>
> Is that the latest count of those out of work or those that really
>want to work?

Of working age, not in the work force.  Some are happy on welfare, no
doubt. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435155

John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>> seriously, who knew?
>>
>
> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.


    The polls were wrong, because they wanted them to be wrong. They 
make the calls they needed to, to get the results they wanted. They know 
how people are registered, so they call from the lists, until they get 
what they need, for that day's numbers. It's one of their tricks, that 
will cause some undecided to vote the way they want people to vote. It 
doesn't always work.



-- 
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435162

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:46:48 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

>John Larkin wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>>> seriously, who knew?
>>>
>>
>> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
>> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
>> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>
>
>    The polls were wrong, because they wanted them to be wrong. They 
>make the calls they needed to, to get the results they wanted. They know 
>how people are registered, so they call from the lists, until they get 
>what they need, for that day's numbers. It's one of their tricks, that 
>will cause some undecided to vote the way they want people to vote. It 
>doesn't always work.

The New York Times has "rededicated" itself to honest reporting. I
only regret that I had but one subscription to cancel.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435221

I read that.  The bagdad bob speeches  were more believable

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#436203

bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote:
> I read that.  The bagdad bob speeches  were more believable


   I kept thinking of Baghdad Bob's '20,000 truckloads of...' whenever 
Hillary was whining.


-- 
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#436202

John Larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:46:48 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>>>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>>>> seriously, who knew?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
>>> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
>>> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>>
>>
>>     The polls were wrong, because they wanted them to be wrong. They
>> make the calls they needed to, to get the results they wanted. They know
>> how people are registered, so they call from the lists, until they get
>> what they need, for that day's numbers. It's one of their tricks, that
>> will cause some undecided to vote the way they want people to vote. It
>> doesn't always work.
>
> The New York Times has "rededicated" itself to honest reporting. I
> only regret that I had but one subscription to cancel.


    How can they rededicate to something that they never were?


-- 
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#435188

Den lørdag den 12. november 2016 kl. 19.46.55 UTC+1 skrev Michael Terrell:
> John Larkin wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
> > <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
> >> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
> >> seriously, who knew?
> >>
> >
> > What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
> > paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
> > a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
> 
> 
>     The polls were wrong, because they wanted them to be wrong. They 
> make the calls they needed to, to get the results they wanted. They know 
> how people are registered, so they call from the lists, until they get 
> what they need, for that day's numbers. It's one of their tricks, that 
> will cause some undecided to vote the way they want people to vote. It 
> doesn't always work.

Cheating on the polls would be stupid, the reason Clinton lost was that 
the media kept saying she was sure to win so her voted didn't bother to 
go vote 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web