On 10/01/2025 09:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 1/10/25 4:19 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 10/01/2025 09:09, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>> On 1/10/25 2:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 09/01/2025 23:31, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>> Now 100+ years from now, if all remains constant, the
>>>>>    ice will have melted back some more and there might be
>>>>>    a more useful exposed rim.
>>>>
>>>> Go and calculate the mass of ice on Greenland, and its latent heat
>>>> of melting, and divide that by a hundred years and tell me that
>>>> somehow the sun is going to provide that level of excess energy to
>>>> the planet .
>>>
>>>    As I said elsewhere, I don't see Greenland melting
>>>    anytime soon. 'Climate' suffers 'cooling periods'
>>>    roughly every 500 years - often driven by massive
>>>    Indonesian volcanic events (sometimes asteroids).
>>>    Iceland may sometimes play a role.
>>>
>>>    I think Greenland is mostly 'cycling' - right now
>>>    it's slowly melting but sometime soon the climate
>>>    may change a few degrees and it'll build up a lot
>>>    more ice again.
>>>
>>>> The ice age didn't end in a century. In fact it hasn't ended,
>>>> technically. We are in an interstadial.
>>>
>>>    Well ... the 'main part' of the last ice age DID
>>>    end pretty abruptly in terms of geological time.
>>>    Nobody is sure exactly why - all the factors that
>>>    co-contributed. My GUESS is that sea levels got
>>>    low enough to destabilize the methane hydrate
>>>    deposits. There may be proxy evidence - we'll see.
>>>
>>>> But the point is it took thousands of years for the ice to melt.
>>>
>>>    Well ... more like maybe 1000 years.
>>>
>> While the Younger Dryas feature abrupt and massive atmospheric
>> climate change over a few decades - way more than any modern warming
>> or cooling - it did not immediately melt all of the ice.
>>
>> https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.png
>
>
>   These events have "curves". ALL the ice doesn't form,
>   or melt, overnight. The BULK may change quickly but
>   there's always a long 'shadow'.
>
>   Right NOW we're still in the shadow of the last Big
>   Freeze.
>
>
>> Shows the actual sea level rises and the full de glaciation took *over
>> 6000* years.
>>
>> And continues albeit at a far slower pace, to ythis day.
>>
>> Mountains of ice do not melt in a day, or a week, or a decade or even
>> a millennium
>>
>>
>>>    The bullshit "world flood" then happened
>>>    as ice-dams and such failed and sent Huge
>>>    quantities of water down river tracts in
>>>    the northern hemisphere. I can see why so
>>>    many people imagined the entire world was
>>>    flooded.
>>>
>>>    Thing is, the last Big Freeze happened really
>>>    quick too. SOME evidence points to an asteroid
>>>    hitting arctic Canada or Greenland.
>>>
>> IT may have heppened quickly, but the ice did not form overnight.
>>
>>>    All the causes/equations are difficult, hard to
>>>    pin down, but not impossible. 25 years from now
>>>    we'll have a much better picture. Might even be
>>>    able to take advantage.
>>
>> The main facts are known. No matter what happens in the atmosphere,
>> miles deep ice sheets to not melt overnight, and nor does deep
>> permafrost.
>>
>> You have to be particularly ignorant of physics to believe otherwise.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat
>
>   Ummm ... don't think I'm "pretty ignorant" at all,
>   have always researched this kind of stuff.
>
Its not a matter of resaearchm, but of phyics, and oif yoiu had
reaqearched te grpah I indicated it show exactly how the oice melted and
sea levels roise ovre a 600 year period of constant steady
>   As said, 'curves'.

No. Virtually a straight line,.

Post the Younger Dryas, ice started melting and sea level rose a a
steady rate for the next 6000 years.

That was the 10% to 90%, and we have hadanother 5% since then, riughly.

The 90% is kinda volatile
>   but the 10% sticks around for a long time,
>   maybe seeds the NEXT cycle's curve.
>
>   It's been about 55 million years since it ALL
>   melted ... tropical jungle pole to pole. It's
>   been longer since it ALL froze. Mostly we
>   drift back and forth along a rough center line.
>   MANY factors seem to drive the cycles.

Yes but that is hand-wavy BS and doesn't really help answer the question
of whether or not Greenland will be ice free in 100 years.

And the physics says no. Latent heat of melting is simply too massive
for that ice sheet.

You are in this matter plain *wrong*.

https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.png

Clearly shows rate of melt, but you ignored the [f]actual data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat
Shows the underlying physics, that you hand waved away.

--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On 1/10/25 4:52 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 10/01/2025 09:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> On 1/10/25 4:19 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 10/01/2025 09:09, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/25 2:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 09/01/2025 23:31, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>> Now 100+ years from now, if all remains constant, the
>>>>>>    ice will have melted back some more and there might be
>>>>>>    a more useful exposed rim.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go and calculate the mass of ice on Greenland, and its latent heat
>>>>> of melting, and divide that by a hundred years and tell me that
>>>>> somehow the sun is going to provide that level of excess energy to
>>>>> the planet .
>>>>
>>>>    As I said elsewhere, I don't see Greenland melting
>>>>    anytime soon. 'Climate' suffers 'cooling periods'
>>>>    roughly every 500 years - often driven by massive
>>>>    Indonesian volcanic events (sometimes asteroids).
>>>>    Iceland may sometimes play a role.
>>>>
>>>>    I think Greenland is mostly 'cycling' - right now
>>>>    it's slowly melting but sometime soon the climate
>>>>    may change a few degrees and it'll build up a lot
>>>>    more ice again.
>>>>
>>>>> The ice age didn't end in a century. In fact it hasn't ended,
>>>>> technically. We are in an interstadial.

The rate of change is the tricky part - even the Ice Ages showed us that
a change over 10,000 years is too rapid for species to adapt and not go
extinct.

And for Greenland's ice, a lot of it is already doomed to melt, because
of the Earth's total energy imbalance has roughly doubled in the past 50
years, so it is additional thermal energy in the system that's going to
have to do/go somewhere:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#Earth's_energy_imbalance_(EEI)>

TL;DR: its why sea level has risen by +4" since 1993.

>>>>    Well ... the 'main part' of the last ice age DID
>>>>    end pretty abruptly in terms of geological time.
>>>>    Nobody is sure exactly why - all the factors that
>>>>    co-contributed. My GUESS is that sea levels got
>>>>    low enough to destabilize the methane hydrate
>>>>    deposits. There may be proxy evidence - we'll see.
>>>>
>>>>> But the point is it took thousands of years for the ice to melt.
>>>>
>>>>    Well ... more like maybe 1000 years.
>>>>
>>> While the Younger Dryas feature abrupt and massive atmospheric
>>> climate change over a few decades - way more than any modern warming
>>> or cooling - it did not immediately melt all of the ice.
>>>
>>> https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-
>>> Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.png
>>
>>
>>    These events have "curves". ALL the ice doesn't form,
>>    or melt, overnight. The BULK may change quickly but
>>    there's always a long 'shadow'.
>>
>>    Right NOW we're still in the shadow of the last Big
>>    Freeze.
>>
>>
>>> Shows the actual sea level rises and the full de glaciation took
>>> *over 6000* years.
>>>
>>> And continues albeit at a far slower pace, to ythis day.
>>>
>>> Mountains of ice do not melt in a day, or a week, or a decade or even
>>> a millennium
>>>
>>>
>>>>    The bullshit "world flood" then happened
>>>>    as ice-dams and such failed and sent Huge
>>>>    quantities of water down river tracts in
>>>>    the northern hemisphere. I can see why so
>>>>    many people imagined the entire world was
>>>>    flooded.
>>>>
>>>>    Thing is, the last Big Freeze happened really
>>>>    quick too. SOME evidence points to an asteroid
>>>>    hitting arctic Canada or Greenland.
>>>>
>>> IT may have heppened quickly, but the ice did not form overnight.
>>>
>>>>    All the causes/equations are difficult, hard to
>>>>    pin down, but not impossible. 25 years from now
>>>>    we'll have a much better picture. Might even be
>>>>    able to take advantage.
>>>
>>> The main facts are known. No matter what happens in the atmosphere,
>>> miles deep ice sheets to not melt overnight, and nor does deep
>>> permafrost.
>>>
>>> You have to be particularly ignorant of physics to believe otherwise.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat
>>
>>    Ummm ... don't think I'm "pretty ignorant" at all,
>>    have always researched this kind of stuff.
>>
> Its not a matter of resaearchm, but of phyics, and oif yoiu had
> reaqearched te grpah I indicated it show exactly how the oice melted and
> sea levels roise ovre a 600 year period of constant steady

Because its effectively an integration function, so it doesn't correlate
as neatly to the source energy input change causing the melt/freeze.

>>    As said, 'curves'.
>
> No. Virtually a straight line,.
>
>
> Post the Younger Dryas, ice started melting and sea level rose a a
> steady rate for the next 6000 years.
>
> That was the 10% to 90%, and we have hadanother 5% since then, riughly.

Contemplate rate of change: it wasn't until the rate de-accelerated in
~8000 BC that the environment became stable enough for humans to develop
agriculture and give rise to civilization.

>
> The 90% is kinda volatile
>>    but the 10% sticks around for a long time,
>>    maybe seeds the NEXT cycle's curve.
>>
>>    It's been about 55 million years since it ALL
>>    melted ... tropical jungle pole to pole. It's
>>    been longer since it ALL froze. Mostly we
>>    drift back and forth along a rough center line.
>>    MANY factors seem to drive the cycles.
>
> Yes but that is hand-wavy BS and doesn't really help answer the question
> of whether or not Greenland will be ice free in 100 years.
>
> And the physics says no. Latent heat of melting is simply too massive
> for that ice sheet.

One needs to start at first principles of excess heat added to the
system, and then determine how it is distributed. Some is going to go
to Greenland, sure, but there's also the other 97% of the world too.

>
> You are in this matter plain *wrong*.
>
> https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-
> Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.png
> Clearly shows rate of melt, but you ignored the [f]actual data.

Be aware that that graph is ~20 years out of date.

As is a lot of other references on that website. However, this page of
theirs does illustrate some of the thermal hook that was already
occurring prior to where a lot of their data ends in 2004:

<https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/climate-change/>

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat
> Shows the underlying physics, that you hand waved away.

Which is precisely why having already observed +4" (+110mm) of sea level
rise over 30 years should scare the living hell out of you.

Earth's oceans' volume is 1.335 billion cubic kilometers

Surface area of Earth covered by water is 361 million km^2, which means
that dividing gives an average depth = 3.698 km = 3698 meters. A 4"
(110mm) rise is an increase of +0.00002975 (= +0.002975%), which based
on water's thermal coefficient of expansion is 210 x 10-6 (1/ºC) means
an average temperature rise of 0.00002975/210 x 10-6 (1/ºC) = +0.142 C

Now that value might not seem to be all that much, but it is an average
across the entire 3698m deep water column, and so one can then also use
the latent heat of water ... 4186 J/kg·K (1 cal/g·C) ... to determine
how much energy must have already been added to the oceans since 1993.

Volume of 1.335 billion km^3 * 1e+12 liters/km^3 * 4186 J/kg·K * 1kg/L
= 1.355 E+9 * E+12 * 4.186 E+3
= 5.672 E+24 Joules: estimate of excess heat already absorbed.

For context, Hiroshima was 1.5 x 10^13 joules of heating, so:

(5.672 E+24 J)/(1.5 E+13 J) = ~3.78 E+11 Hiroshima equivalents

Over (2024-1993) 31 years, its ~12 billion Hiroshima bombs per year.

rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:32:01 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time,
>> often involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of
>> individuals based on perceived traits. Modern scientists consider
>> such biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage
>> racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical
>> and behavioral traits.
>
> To be perfectly clear -- fuck modern scientists and modernity in general.

You're a bitter old man :-D

"Bring out your dead...
"Bring out your dead...
"Bring out your dead..."

--
"The question is rather: if we ever succeed in making a mind 'of nuts and
bolts', how will we know we have succeeded? -- Fergal Toomey
"It will tell us." -- Barry Kort

-hh wrote:

> (snip stuff from the same guy who defended censorship because it was by "private companies" who were being told to do it by the Biden administration)

Some of us value freedom more than others, obviously.

RonB wrote:

>Apparently L.A. is burning because they quit making fire breaks on the hills
>overlooking the city because "they interfered" with the migration of some
>breed of mouse. And the water shortage is partly caused by the removal of
>dams in north California. (That and they sent their "extra" fire equipment
>to Ukraine.)

'Course, the fire chief is a lesbian whose main agenda is increasing
"diversity" in fire fighters. Sheesh.

On 2025-01-10 02:19, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 1/9/25 5:35 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> On 2025-01-09 17:14, chrisv wrote:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, its purpose wasn't to restrict travel freedoms:
>>>
>>> What they claimed in a study 20 years ago means nothing.  Today, they
>>> want to be able to shut you down for any reason they want, e.g. some
>>> "public health emergency" such as covid.  Or you've hit your "carbon
>>> limit".
>>
>> I've read the same thing. Of course, these are things that are never
>> admitted in the highly discredited mainstream publications Hugh
>> Huntzinger relies on to make an ass of himself.
>
>   Leftists particularly seek to limit travel. Surprised
>   Euros or even USAians don't have to get "travel permits"
>   yet to visit the next town. Propaganda needs mean it's
>   best if people are TRAPPED in their own immediate area
>   and can't personally compare notes with people elsewhere.

They want their fifteen-minute cities and won't tolerate you even dating
or having friends outside. You'll live, work and study within a
fifteen-minute walking distance or you will be punished... for the
Earth, of course. This is the kind of garbage that got "progressives"
removed from political influence across the West.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On 2025-01-10 04:09, RonB wrote:
> On 2025-01-09, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2025-01-09 03:40, RonB wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-08, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 08:59:22 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nah, we're not thinking in terms of race with that accusation, we're
>>>>> thinking in terms of *bigotry* as expressed by denigration of a whole
>>>>> group of people based on race.
>>>>
>>>> But race doesn't exist. Or does it? The liberals are fine with giving a
>>>> group of people special privileges based on race.
>>>
>>> The Woke seem confused on that issue. Of course the Woke aren't having a
>>> very good time right now, so they may a little constipated. Ford, McDonald's
>>> and Walmart are the latest to drop (or curtail) the DEI BS.
>>
>> I was just talking about Ford with my wife yesterday. If I remember
>> correctly, they were the _only_ American automotive company strong
>> enough in 2008 not to require a bailout from the government. Since then,
>> they have jumped on the electric vehicle train which has cost them a
>> fortune since nobody wants those cars, at least not from them. Even
>> worse, their F-150 has just gotten a recall affecting several hundred
>> thousand vehicle, exacerbating the damage. I imagine that they'll be
>> requiring government assistance very soon.
>
> They *were* the strongest... until they bought into the EV crap. Hopefully
> they'll back out of that stupidity. How big is the "carbon footprint" that
> is required to provide the electricity that these "climate conscience" cars
> require? And what kid of "carbon footprint" cost is there in the batteries?
> — (and they wear out in a few years and are too expensive to replace so the
> car usually ends up in the junk yard). This "green products" push is just
> another scam. Not to mention that most of the EV vehicles are about
> worthless if you need to drive more than 120 miles.

Important facts:

1. You have to flood wide areas of land to extract lithium. They have
new ways of doing it, but they haven't yet been implemented.
2. Lithium is considered a rare metal, and there isn't enough of it to
supply everyone with an electric car.
3. Charged to 100% and depleted to 0%, lithium batteries last about
1,000 charges.
4. The batteries in hybrid cars were charged between 25% to 30%, that is
why they lasted longer.
5. Lithium is recycled at a rate of about 1%, the rest ends up in a
landfill.
6. Electric cars themselves are not recycled because it is dangerous to
do so. As a result, they too end up in landfills.
7. The grid in countries that produce a lot of electricity like Canada
is insufficient to allow for everyone to have an electric car. You would
need to add about a dozen nuclear generators to supply enough.

Apparently, Israel has made the process of charging an electric vehicle
less annoying by making drivers whose cars are depleted drive to a
service station where their battery is replaced within a few minutes. I
have yet to see that here.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On 2025-01-10 04:12, RonB wrote:
> On 2025-01-10, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:32:01 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time,
>>> often involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of
>>> individuals based on perceived traits. Modern scientists consider
>>> such biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage
>>> racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical
>>> and behavioral traits.
>>
>>
>> To be perfectly clear -- fuck modern scientists and modernity in general.
>
> Science and scientists need to be put in quotes. Almost all so-called
> "science" these days is pure politics.
>
> Apparently L.A. is burning because they quit making fire breaks on the hills
> overlooking the city because "they interfered" with the migration of some
> breed of mouse. And the water shortage is partly caused by the removal of
> dams in north California. (That and they sent their "extra" fire equipment
> to Ukraine.)

I believe your claim about Los Angeles sealing its fate to save some
breed of mouse. As we know, part of why California is so dry has to do
with the fact that during the Obama period, water was diverted away from
its destination in California into the Pacific Ocean to save some
parasitic species of fish. This is actually well known, but one of my
local "independent" news agencies claimed that Trump was lying when he
brought that up (I have since decided to stop giving that news agency a
chance).

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On 2025-01-10 04:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 10/01/2025 09:09, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> On 1/10/25 2:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 09/01/2025 23:31, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>> Now 100+ years from now, if all remains constant, the
>>>>    ice will have melted back some more and there might be
>>>>    a more useful exposed rim.
>>>
>>> Go and calculate the mass of ice on Greenland, and its latent heat of
>>> melting, and divide that by a hundred years and tell me that somehow
>>> the sun is going to provide that level of excess energy to the planet .
>>
>>    As I said elsewhere, I don't see Greenland melting
>>    anytime soon. 'Climate' suffers 'cooling periods'
>>    roughly every 500 years - often driven by massive
>>    Indonesian volcanic events (sometimes asteroids).
>>    Iceland may sometimes play a role.
>>
>>    I think Greenland is mostly 'cycling' - right now
>>    it's slowly melting but sometime soon the climate
>>    may change a few degrees and it'll build up a lot
>>    more ice again.
>>
>>> The ice age didn't end in a century. In fact it hasn't ended,
>>> technically. We are in an interstadial.
>>
>>    Well ... the 'main part' of the last ice age DID
>>    end pretty abruptly in terms of geological time.
>>    Nobody is sure exactly why - all the factors that
>>    co-contributed. My GUESS is that sea levels got
>>    low enough to destabilize the methane hydrate
>>    deposits. There may be proxy evidence - we'll see.
>>
>>> But the point is it took thousands of years for the ice to melt.
>>
>>    Well ... more like maybe 1000 years.
>>
> While the Younger Dryas feature abrupt and massive atmospheric  climate
> change over a few decades - way more than any modern warming or cooling
> - it did not immediately melt all of the ice.
>
> https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-
> Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.png
>
> Shows the actual sea level rises and the full de glaciation took *over
> 6000* years.
>
> And continues albeit at a far slower pace, to ythis day.
>
> Mountains of ice do not melt in a day, or a week, or a decade or even a
> millennium

Your friendly neighbourhood hippy would disagree. He expects that it
will happen suddenly and swallow us all unless we throw whatever money
we have at the sky... or give it to a faceless globalist elite.

>>    The bullshit "world flood" then happened
>>    as ice-dams and such failed and sent Huge
>>    quantities of water down river tracts in
>>    the northern hemisphere. I can see why so
>>    many people imagined the entire world was
>>    flooded.
>>
>>    Thing is, the last Big Freeze happened really
>>    quick too. SOME evidence points to an asteroid
>>    hitting arctic Canada or Greenland.
>>
> IT may have heppened quickly, but the ice did not form overnight.

Had it actually done so, we would have had stories or dangerous floods
all over the world. Mind you, we have stories of land-consuming floods
from thousands of years ago in pretty much every religion, but they
never mention ice.

>>    All the causes/equations are difficult, hard to
>>    pin down, but not impossible. 25 years from now
>>    we'll have a much better picture. Might even be
>>    able to take advantage.
>
> The main facts are known. No matter what happens in the atmosphere,
> miles deep ice sheets to not melt overnight, and nor does deep permafrost.
>
> You have to be particularly ignorant of physics to believe otherwise.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat

If there is one thing hippies definitely are, it's ignorant.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On 2025-01-10 07:55, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> (snip stuff from the same guy who defended censorship because it was by "private companies" who were being told to do it by the Biden administration)
>
> Some of us value freedom more than others, obviously.

I had a reminder of that yesterday actually. I have a chunk of movies
ripped from DVDs and Blu-Rays on a portable SSD, and others are
purchased from the Microsoft Store. If I show a movie to a class from
the former and a few students were absent, I can upload the movie to
Teams and they can catch up at their leisure. With the latter, they're
completely fucked. I am actually mad that I allowed myself to believe
that it made sense to buy DRM-enabled movies.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On 1/9/2025 4:32 PM, "Lays With Dogs" Larry wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:35:15 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>>
>> "Jigaboo" was the term Archie Bunker used.
>>
>> How about ... "human"?
>>
>
> The problem is that none of these armchair racists has ever
> fucked a black chick. They can only, pathetically, read
> about it in their spurious journals.
>
> Compared to white chicks, who are riddled with neurotic
> tendencies due their thousand-year Christian indoctrination,
> blacks chicks are refreshingly natural in everything that
> they do -- including fucking.

Gross.

Such a low quality person. You HAVE to pay to screw flea-bitten
negresses because no decent White woman will have you.

On 1/10/2025 9:35 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2025-01-10 07:55, chrisv wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>
>>> (snip stuff from the same guy who defended censorship because it was
>>> by "private companies" who were being told to do it by the Biden
>>> administration)
>>
>> Some of us value freedom more than others, obviously.
>
> I had a reminder of that yesterday actually. I have a chunk of movies
> ripped from DVDs and Blu-Rays on a portable SSD, and others are
> purchased from the Microsoft Store. If I show a movie to a class from
> the former and a few students were absent, I can upload the movie to
> Teams and they can catch up at their leisure. With the latter, they're
> completely fucked. I am actually mad that I allowed myself to believe
> that it made sense to buy DRM-enabled movies.

DRM is necessary so the production companies can recoup the $24M ($12M
each) paid to Ryan Gosling and Margot Robbie for a few months work on
Barbie, which, apart from the Ahlstrom-like whining about "the
patriarchy", was a good time.

On 2025-01-10 10:37, DFS wrote:
> On 1/10/2025 9:35 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> On 2025-01-10 07:55, chrisv wrote:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>
>>>> (snip stuff from the same guy who defended censorship because it was
>>>> by "private companies" who were being told to do it by the Biden
>>>> administration)
>>>
>>> Some of us value freedom more than others, obviously.
>>
>> I had a reminder of that yesterday actually. I have a chunk of movies
>> ripped from DVDs and Blu-Rays on a portable SSD, and others are
>> purchased from the Microsoft Store. If I show a movie to a class from
>> the former and a few students were absent, I can upload the movie to
>> Teams and they can catch up at their leisure. With the latter, they're
>> completely fucked. I am actually mad that I allowed myself to believe
>> that it made sense to buy DRM-enabled movies.
>
> DRM is necessary so the production companies can recoup the $24M ($12M
> each) paid to Ryan Gosling and Margot Robbie for a few months work on
> Barbie, which, apart from the Ahlstrom-like whining about "the
> patriarchy", was a good time.

I wouldn't know, I don't watch recent movies that much. I like to buy
movies I liked back in the day on DVD though. I just got Old School and
The Bourne Supremacy.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On 1/10/25 7:55 AM, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>>
>> Prediction: a very brave "(snipped, unread)" is immanent!
>>
> (snip stuff from the same guy who defended censorship because it
> was by "private companies" who were being told to do it by the
> Biden administration)

Golly, I didn't expect a "Whataboutism" attempt!

> Some of us value freedom more than others, obviously.

Where said "some of us" excluded chrisv, as he censored his reply.

-hh

On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 02:23:19 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> Just a note ... in the longer view, most "repressed/suppressed
> memories" pretty much NEVER HAPPENED - at least not remotely as
> 'remembered'. Humans are not HDDs.

I'm not denying it is a problem but when a former altar boy recovers a 30
years old repressed memory about being assaulted by a priest when there
happens to be a potential payday from a suit against the diocese my
bullshit meter goes off scale.

The same applies to many of the 'me too' crowd.

On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 10:22:50 -0500, DFS wrote:

> On 1/9/2025 4:32 PM, "Lays With Dogs" Larry wrote:
>
>
>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:35:15 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Jigaboo" was the term Archie Bunker used.
>>>
>>> How about ... "human"?
>>>
>>>
>> The problem is that none of these armchair racists has ever fucked a
>> black chick. They can only, pathetically, read about it in their
>> spurious journals.
>>
>> Compared to white chicks, who are riddled with neurotic tendencies due
>> their thousand-year Christian indoctrination,
>> blacks chicks are refreshingly natural in everything that they do --
>> including fucking.
>
>
> Gross.

I don't have any personal experience in the matter but I find it amusing
that after screaming 'race is a social construct' black chicks are
superior because, wait for it, they are black.

Funny how positive comments about a particular genetic group are perfectly
fine while negative observations aren't

On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 09:12:54 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> On 2025-01-10, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:32:01 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time,
>>> often involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of
>>> individuals based on perceived traits. Modern scientists consider
>>> such biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage
>>> racial explanations for collective differentiation in both
>>> physical and behavioral traits.
>>
>>
>> To be perfectly clear -- fuck modern scientists and modernity in
>> general.
>
> Science and scientists need to be put in quotes. Almost all so-called
> "science" these days is pure politics.

That's a more nuanced take but I wasn't in the mood. The 'science' on that
particular topic can be traced back to Israel Ehrenberg who adopted the
very regal sounding name of Ashley Montagu when he declared race was a
social construct and got UNESCO onboard.

> Apparently L.A. is burning because they quit making fire breaks on the
> hills overlooking the city because "they interfered" with the migration
> of some breed of mouse. And the water shortage is partly caused by the
> removal of dams in north California. (That and they sent their "extra"
> fire equipment to Ukraine.)

Hey, I like smelt. Fried with a little tartar sauce.

rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 10:22:50 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> On 1/9/2025 4:32 PM, "Lays With Dogs" Larry wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:35:15 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jigaboo" was the term Archie Bunker used.
>>>>
>>>> How about ... "human"?
>>>>
>>> The problem is that none of these armchair racists has ever fucked a
>>> black chick. They can only, pathetically, read about it in their
>>> spurious journals.
>>>
>>> Compared to white chicks, who are riddled with neurotic tendencies due
>>> their thousand-year Christian indoctrination,
>>> blacks chicks are refreshingly natural in everything that they do --
>>> including fucking.
>>
>> Gross.
>
> I don't have any personal experience in the matter but I find it amusing
> that after screaming 'race is a social construct' black chicks are
> superior because, wait for it, they are black.

I like how you combine various individaul claims into blanket claims.

"Screaming" LOL get real drama queen.

> Funny how positive comments about a particular genetic group are perfectly
> fine while negative observations aren't

Context. Get the context.

Jesus, the loose thinking online!

--
Yevtushenko has... an ego that can crack crystal at a distance of twenty feet.
-- John Cheever

On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 06:59:08 -0600, chrisv wrote:

> rbowman wrote:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>> Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time,
>>> often involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of
>>> individuals based on perceived traits. Modern scientists consider
>>> such biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage
>>> racial explanations for collective differentiation in both
>>> physical and behavioral traits.
>>
>> To be perfectly clear -- fuck modern scientists and modernity in
>> general.
>
> Too many of them go where the funding is, which is from leftists and
> communists. Wannabe tyrants.

If the lack of funding doesn't get them the cancel culture will. Back in
the '80s James Watson gave a talk at the Harvard Coop bookstore that I
happened into by chance. He realized the ice he was skating on was very
thin and it started to crack during the Q&A session following.

It took about 20 years before his unfiltered comments got him canceled.
His views had not changed but the left captured the power.

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

"In 2007, Watson said, "I turned against the left wing because they don't
like genetics, because genetics implies that sometimes in life we fail
because we have bad genes. They want all failure in life to be due to the
evil system."

Science be damned when there is an ideology involved. It hasn't changed
since the days when the earth was the center of the universe because the
bible told me so.

On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 06:40:45 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:32:01 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time,
>>> often involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of
>>> individuals based on perceived traits. Modern scientists consider
>>> such biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage
>>> racial explanations for collective differentiation in both
>>> physical and behavioral traits.
>>
>> To be perfectly clear -- fuck modern scientists and modernity in
>> general.
>
> You're a bitter old man :-D
>
> "Bring out your dead...
> "Bring out your dead...
> "Bring out your dead..."

Sad is closer to the truth than bitter. If the human race, excuses me,
species destroys itself through hybris, it's no skin off my ass. I've been
more of an observer than a participant.

On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 04:09:09 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> The bullshit "world flood" then happened as ice-dams and such failed
> and sent Huge quantities of water down river tracts in the northern
> hemisphere. I can see why so many people imagined the entire world
> was flooded.

https://www.glaciallakemissoula.org/the-big-picture.html

If there were humans hanging around eastern Washington that survived they
had some pretty good stories. I think Some of the tribes in the area do
have floods in their lore.

Before I even knew the story I remember driving through the Washington
scablands and thinking something interesting happened there.

-hh wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>>
>>> Prediction: a very brave "(snipped, unread)" is immanent!
>>>
>> (snip stuff from the same guy who defended censorship because it
>> was by "private companies" who were being told to do it by the
>> Biden administration)
>
>Golly, I didn't expect a "Whataboutism" attempt!

I sure didn't expect you to man-up and admit that you were wrong on
the censorship issue.

>> Some of us value freedom more than others, obviously.
>
>Where said "some of us" excluded chrisv, as he censored his reply.

That's a lie. I censored nothing. Your full post is available for
anyone to read.

Your response will be deleted, unread.

On 1/10/25 3:40 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 06:40:45 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:32:01 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time,
>>>> often involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of
>>>> individuals based on perceived traits. Modern scientists consider
>>>> such biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage
>>>> racial explanations for collective differentiation in both
>>>> physical and behavioral traits.
>>>
>>> To be perfectly clear -- fuck modern scientists and modernity in
>>> general.
>>
>> You're a bitter old man :-D
>>
>> "Bring out your dead...
>> "Bring out your dead...
>> "Bring out your dead..."
>
> Sad is closer to the truth than bitter. If the human race, excuses me,
> species destroys itself through hybris, it's no skin off my ass. I've been
> more of an observer than a participant.

Humans won't destroy themselves. Don't mix up cro-magnons with Modern
Humans in any argument. You'll get the wrong result if you do.

Cro-magnons will destroy themselves. Not "humans". It happened once
before, and is now happening for a second time as I speak. Your species
is too close to Modern Human to not want to hurt Modern Humans for fear
of being less evolved than them. This will destroy you in time. Count on
that.

On 1/10/2025 4:19 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 10:22:50 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/9/2025 4:32 PM, "Lays With Dogs" Larry wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:35:15 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jigaboo" was the term Archie Bunker used.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about ... "human"?
>>>>>
>>>> The problem is that none of these armchair racists has ever fucked a
>>>> black chick. They can only, pathetically, read about it in their
>>>> spurious journals.
>>>>
>>>> Compared to white chicks, who are riddled with neurotic tendencies due
>>>> their thousand-year Christian indoctrination,
>>>> blacks chicks are refreshingly natural in everything that they do --
>>>> including fucking.
>>>
>>> Gross.
>>
>> I don't have any personal experience in the matter but I find it amusing
>> that after screaming 'race is a social construct' black chicks are
>> superior because, wait for it, they are black.
>
> I like how you combine various individaul claims into blanket claims.
>
> "Screaming" LOL get real drama queen.

The screaming IS real, queen.

Ever since it was discovered half the prison population was named Tyrone
or Keisha, liberals have fallen all over themselves to find a reason to
classify them apart from their African DNA.

>> Funny how positive comments about a particular genetic group are perfectly
>> fine while negative observations aren't
>
> Context. Get the context.
>
> Jesus, the loose thinking online!

The sheer weenieness of you has got to be exhausting to your fambly.

"black girl magic!" = you go girl!
"That's a she-boon!" = you a racist!

On 1/10/25 3:37 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 06:59:08 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time,
>>>> often involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of
>>>> individuals based on perceived traits. Modern scientists consider
>>>> such biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage
>>>> racial explanations for collective differentiation in both
>>>> physical and behavioral traits.
>>>
>>> To be perfectly clear -- fuck modern scientists and modernity in
>>> general.
>>
>> Too many of them go where the funding is, which is from leftists and
>> communists. Wannabe tyrants.
>
> If the lack of funding doesn't get them the cancel culture will. Back in
> the '80s James Watson gave a talk at the Harvard Coop bookstore that I
> happened into by chance. He realized the ice he was skating on was very
> thin and it started to crack during the Q&A session following.
>
> It took about 20 years before his unfiltered comments got him canceled.
> His views had not changed but the left captured the power.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson
>
> "In 2007, Watson said, "I turned against the left wing because they don't
> like genetics, because genetics implies that sometimes in life we fail
> because we have bad genes. They want all failure in life to be due to the
> evil system."
>
> Science be damned when there is an ideology involved. It hasn't changed
> since the days when the earth was the center of the universe because the
> bible told me so.
>

You're mistaking science with science in the hands of cro-magnons. It is
a cro-magnon feature to use "science" as such.

This problem will soon self-correct though. Science will go among Modern
Humans where it belongs.