On Mon, 23 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 22:59:07 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> Add a loose monetary policy, tax decreases and increased government
>> debt,
>> and we have a nice booming economy ahead of us. The key, as always, is
>> to know when to sell your shares, take a break, and enter again at the
>> bottom.
>
> Nice booming inflation... I'll strangle the first person that says 'But
> the fundamentals are sound.'
>
> I don't do the stock market so what is good for Wall Street doesn't matter
> to me.
>

I am fairly young, so I always wonder at what point it is time to take my
stuff and move it into bonds. On the other hand... I also thought that
since I do not have children, perhaps I should move the assets into a
non-profit for some kind of good libertarian purpose. Well, probably at
least 10-20 years before any of those loose thoughts might become reality.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

>>>  in any useful way - but his giant rocket CAN transport
>>>  LOTS of stuff into orbit or to the moon.
>>
>> Rockets are boring! I was space elevators and shooting magnetically
>> accelerated loads into space!
>
>
> And PRIME terrorist targets :-)

This is the truth! But we'll guard those targets with lovely and spiritual
Habermassian dialogue! ;)

> Alas, human brains just aren't really wired for that.
> There tend to be 'trades' - and 'stability' is often
> one of them. 'Double-alpha' people, who have it all,
> are VERY VERY rare.

I wonder if it is an urban myth that the smarter someone is, the bigger the
chance some mental problems?

> BIRD brains ... there are some species that have
> spectacular IQ in their little nut-sized brains.
> The 'wiring' is a LOT better than in mammals.

I like ravens. Very cute birds with personality!

> Might be the dinos were a LOT smarter than we like
> to believe ... lack of 'tech' does not = stupid.
> Could be it took 65 million years for Socrates to
> pick up where they left off :-)

I vaguely remember a book from when I was a child that ended with the dinosaurs
leaving the planet on a space ship. I have one distinct image from the end of
the book when they are leaving. That's all I remember. I wonder if I made it up?

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 12/22/24 4:31 AM, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 02:12:43 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> Those poor people ... caught between an ever-growing mountain of
>>> facts/evidence and equally-persuasive *belief* (which requires no
>>> facts). They TRY to find ways to splice it all together. It doesn't
>>> work well ...
>>
>> A friend was a Young Earther despite being a proficient programmer. Given
>> the premise God can do anything it's no problem for him to whip up the
>> Grand Canyon with all its geological layers in his spare time. He was also
>> well rehearsed in the creationist arguments against evolution.
>
>
> Met 'em. Even prompted one to physically attack me
> because I refused to give in to his worldview.
>
> In any case, as soon as you accept some 'Big Magic
> Joe in the sky' then EVERY weird possibility becomes
> credible. "Belief" knows no bounds and IS at least

This is the truth! This is also why I think metaphysics and idealism is a
mistake. It just multiplies things needlessly.

> as persuasive as any mountain of facts. Amass all
> the facts you want ... they'll STILL burn you at
> the stake. Problem solved .......
>
> And no, such 'theology' is NOT restricted to the
> political 'right' ... it's part of how WE are
> wired-up.
>

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> It also points to 'the real picture' being kinda being
> SO complex and strange it's not really within the realm
> of human IQ anymore. We might put the "AI"s on it, but
> won't understand how they reach their answers.or REALLY
> what it means. As such it all becomes as 'magic' to us -
> full circle.

This is one of my pet theories about the interpretations of quantum physics. The
reason there is no consensus and why some interpretations are so weird, is
_exactly_ what you say. We try to describe the phenomenons with math, and that
works. But when we then try to translate math into our everyday language,
everything breaks down, and that is why we get such things as the multiple
worlds interpretation. Actually, a better name might be the multiple _words_
interpretation. ;)

> We LIKE to think we can grasp it all but ... umm ... NOPE.
> However we CAN *use* the 'magic' the AIs find ... so it's
> not a total loss. Just wave yer wand and repeat " ...
>

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

>> I'd add to that that one is a process and open to change (which has
>> happened and does happen occasionally) and the other a religion.
>
> MAYbe an advantage there ... but maybe NOT. Theists will
> say they don't NEED 'process' or 'corrections' because
> they were magically provided with the RIGHT ANSWER
> long back. They just see us bickering about whether
> 2+2 (common conditions) = 4 for a century or two
> when they knew all along.

True, but I just ignore them. Discussion, except for entertainment or trolling,
is meaningless and a waste of time.

>> I have mixed feelings about Occam, since Occam tends to shut down waaaay
>> too many discussions waaay too quickly. Who is to say what is, in reality
>> "simpler" or less complex, if the understanding of the questions is
>> lacking?
>
> Occam HAS his uses. However sometimes things ARE complicated.
>
> Read my post here to Mr. Natural about 'negative time'
> findings ......
>
> https://phys.org/news/2024-12-scientists-negative-quantum.html

Ahh... but let's wait and see...

"The findings, posted on the preprint server arXiv but not yet published in a
peer-reviewed journal, have attracted both global attention and skepticism".

> Better find a way, quick, to push up human IQ into
> the 500 range, WITHOUT causing insanity.

What is IQ? What is intelligence? We are fumbling around in the dark. Is a human
+ a computer a 200 IQ person? Stanislaw Lem writes in one of his books about
knowledge factories. It was a long time I read it, but it kind of gave me the
impression he is thinking about AI-farms churning out theories and science.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 12/22/24 5:09 PM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 11:55:57 +0100, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> Montana is on the list! Someone suggested that we might like eastern
>>>> Oregon. Someone suggested Wyoming, but that maybe is too flat?
>>>
>>> Much of Wyoming is high prairie. There are signs on I-80 when you cross
>>> the Continental Divide but it's hard to discern exactly where it might
>>> be.  You hit mountain ranges in the west including the Tetons. Even
>>> Yellowstone, while definitely worth visiting, is mostly flat, at least the
>>> more accessible parts.. Grand Teton NP is at the southern border of
>>> Yellowstone and is where the fun begins.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Teton_National_Park
>>
>> Very beautiful!
>
>
> Also very COLD ... and when age gives you
> medical issues, maybe TOO FAR from top-
> notch facilities.

Only cold below -25 C scares me. That's one advantage of having grown up
in northern europe. ;) I'm not saying I like cold, I don't, but it doesn't
bother me that much.

Sadly though, my wife does not like overly warm climates. I would be
perfectly happy in florida or texas, but that is waaaay too warm for her.
So northern US it is.

> In my youth I often thought about moving to
> Alaska - even bought a .375 H&H for bears.
> NOW I don't wanna be more than 30 minutes from
> the docs and hospitals Just In Case.

Who hasn't ever thought about moving to alaska? I too, have a dream about
a small, remote, off grid cottage, where local trading is a thing, and
where income taxes are a thing of the past. ;)

All fun and games, until you cut yourself and the wound gets infected. ;)

> .375 ... imagine a light 12-ga shotgun with
> 3" mags - NOT pleasant to fire ! You do it
> only IF something large and furry is about
> to eat you :-)

I've heard squirrels in alaska are very aggressive!

>>> The Bighorns are another spur, but not as dramatic as the Tetons.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bighorn_Mountains
>>>
>>> That page has a nice relief map for reference.
>>>
>>> Eastern Oregon is also pretty flat high desert until you get to the
>>> Cascades.
>
> That along with east Wash, esp with Trump, is likely to
> become "Greater Idaho". The locals HATE the Wokies for
> good reasons.

This is what I would count on! ;)

> The re-distribution of the original Texas territory
> sets the legal precedents.
>

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 12/22/24 4:55 PM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-12-22, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The great strength and the great weakness of christianity is that they
>>>> are bound by the book. This is a problem in todays woke world,
>>>
>>> The woke are bound by their own book - which is far more outlandish
>>> than the Bible.
>>
>> What bible do they have?
>
> It's all on TicTok ... just not quite consolidated
> into one place :-)

Ahhh! You made me feel old. I've never had tictok but I hear about it in
the media of course. Many countries are thinking about banning it or
implementing an age limit I've heard.

Sometimes I wonder about the age on usenet. I feel younger than you. My
feeling is that you guys are around 60.

>> Woke will self destruct into ever smaller factions. Eventually it ends up
>> as individualism, which is good, or it will spend itself on in fighting and
>> go away as a political force.
>
> Woke is already imploding, fast. It was just
> unsustainable nonsense. 'DEI' is in the
> dumpster, all the weird trannie stuff - Joe
> just DROPPED "Title IX". "Equality of Result"
> just couldn't be real. It was all a fanatical
> cult religion. If they could have burned heretics
> at the stake they would have. Still did damage ......

Excellent! My predictions are coming true! ;) It just took a couple of
years and a financial crisis. ;)

> I've a cousin (2nd/3rd?) who long back when she was
> about 10 wondered aloud why the govt just didn't
> give everybody Free Money. Then nobody would have
> to work or anything ! She wasn't un-intelligent,
> just hideously naive. Alas 'Woke' Gens-Z/A2,
> even older and supposedly more informed, STILL
> believe in that sort of paradigm. Can't figure out
> how to wipe yer ass - wheeled-in with a needle
> in your arm once a month - you should be director
> of NASA or SecDef or Boeing CEO or something !
>
>>>> but if they let it go, they won't be christians any longer. I respect
>>>> the guys who struggled to reconcile the book with todays world without
>>>> giving it up completely.
>>>
>>> The literalists have always had - and been - a problem.  I resolved the
>>> issue in my school days.  The literature classes we took taught us about
>>> metaphor and simile, and I saw no reason why the seven days of creation
>>> should not be metaphorical rather than literal.  Suddenly there was no
>>> conflict.  There are lots of things like that in the book.
>>
>> This is the truth!
>
> BUT there are still rather a LOT of people who do
> NOT see it as metaphor - but as an exact description.
> They are real, they are many, they are amongst us,
> they are in powerful agencies and governments.
>
> However, would your/my favs be any 'better' for
> the masses, the Big Equation ???

Maybe they can learn? Another powerful answer is that sometimes we just
don't know, and that it's ok to suspend judgment and collect further
evidence.

For me, that is one of the strengths and the beauty of agnosticism! =)

It touches a little bit on the Natural Ontological Attitude (NOA), I still
can't make up my mind if it is brilliant or trivial, but I've thought
similar thoughts myself.

> "Mystic crystal revelations and the mind's true
> liberation" - or just Fascism v7.2 ??? :-)

Sadly it can way too often be utilized for fascism 7.2. =(

> Just sayin' ... don't be TOO proud, TOO sure.

True!

> In the 1800s 'science' was NOT convinced of the
> same 'truths' we worship today. Mary Shelly
> did NOT pull that all out of her ass - there
> were 'learned men' who REALLY thought that way.
>
> What will we "know" 100 years from now ?
>
> MAYBE best to leave a lot of stuff - esp with
> political/social implications - kinda "fuzzy".

I think this is wise.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 00:13:32 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> So let's not feel TOO damned proud, TOO damned superior.
>> In the end, not TOO long, we're just gonna be another species of
>> theists with their 'revealed truths'.
>
> The Greeks got a lot of mileage out of the hybris theme and it never
> worked out well for those involved.
>
>
> https://www.sap.com/products/acquired-brands/what-is-hybris.html
>
> I don't know if those people have a weird sense of humor or if they're
> completely illiterate.
>

Haha brilliant! It surely must be a joke!

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 22/12/2024 21:54, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/12/2024 11:28, D wrote:
>>>>> The only difference is the latter big bang has a sentient intelligence
>>>>> with a Plan in charge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really we only reject it on the slender basis of Occam - it's simply
>>>>> more complicated than necessary to explain this shit.
>>>>
>>>> I'd add to that that one is a process and open to change (which has
>>>> happened and does happen occasionally) and the other a religion.
>>>>
>>> I wasn't talking about the *practice* of science, or of religion for that
>>> matter. I was talking about their metaphysical *beliefs*.
>>
>> Ahh... our definitions differ when it comes to science. I was tricked! But
>> I will drop this line as I think it leads us back to old threads. ;)
>>
>>>> I have mixed feelings about Occam, since Occam tends to shut down waaaay
>>>> too many discussions waaay too quickly. Who is to say what is, in reality
>>>> "simpler" or less complex, if the understanding of the questions is
>>>> lacking?
>>>
>>> Precisely, In many ways the God explanation is simpler :
>>>
>>> "God did it all,  and faked it so it looks like he was never there at all,
>>> to test you fuckers"
>>>
>>> ...there are only three people who understand quantum physics and two of
>>> them are liars....
>>
>> This is the truth and exactly one of the things I do not like with Occam.
>> If you're on team God (TM) that's the easiest explanation, if you're on
>> team Science (C), that's nonsense, and your version is the simplest.
>>
>> There's no way to decide from a neutral point, if you are dealing with
>> religious people regardless of if they are from the religion religion, or
>> the religion science (which has very little to do with the science as a
>> process).
>>
>>> But if you examine Occam from outside the confines of realism and
>>> materialism, he makes perfect sense.
>>>
>>> 1. The problem of induction means that no inference  can ever be proved to
>>> be correct.
>>> 2. So given that its all bullshit anyway, why not pick the simplest
>>> bullshit that fits the facts?
>>> 3.  ...And fits within the accepted already established bullshit, that
>>> works...
>>
>> Ah, but the problem of induction is a chimera, an illusion. Popper argued
>> that justification is not needed at all, and seeking justification "begs
>> for an authoritarian answer".
>>
>> The only thing we need to worry about is if it works, and that's it.
>>
> Yes, but Realist/materialists reject stuff that works on the basis that its
> 'not real'...

Then they are clearly religious and not philosophers. I have no beef with
the claim that religion or prayer "works". My explanation is psychological
and not spiritual, and that is where my beef starts. I would think that
this is obvious for even the most battle hardened materialist.

>>> That is today's problem., People are absolutely reluctant to abandon the
>>> established bullshit, that works.
>>
>> This is not a problem, this is the way. If it works, is in fact the only
>> way. If that is abandoned, everything else is meaningless. That is the
>> strength of materialism and a common, shared external world, and one of the
>> best arguments for it.
>
> It is an argument for a shared external world, but not for its materiality

Hmm, I find it interesting how sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I
don't. This makes me suspect that it is a matter of definition and perhaps
not so much about actual content of our thoughts differing.

>>
>> We've been down this path many times before I think.
>>
>>> Even when they know it is actually wrong.
>>>
>>> The Kuhnian paradigm shift  is staring them in the face, but they simply
>>> cant accept it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 23/12/2024 01:12, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 22:59:07 +0100, D wrote:
>>
>>> Add a loose monetary policy, tax decreases and increased government
>>> debt,
>>> and we have a nice booming economy ahead of us. The key, as always, is
>>> to know when to sell your shares, take a break, and enter again at the
>>> bottom.
>>
>> Nice booming inflation... I'll strangle the first person that says 'But
>> the fundamentals are sound.'
>>
>> I don't do the stock market so what is good for Wall Street doesn't matter
>> to me.
>
> I have to, to stay alive.
>
> But after 20 years I have found a sane way to make reasonable sums. and
> that's better than spending all yiur life with your nose glued to the
> Financial Times..

What is your way?

My way is based on boring, and slow and steady wins the race. Add a bit of
contrarianism, and spending about 10% or so, on lottery tickets. I like
dividends and global companies.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 23/12/2024 06:59, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> 'Private' nuke vessels are NOT practical. Not only
>>   does it require a team of HIGHLY-trained techs to
>>   keep 'em running right
>
> But they dont need to be onboard the damned ship.
>
> How many jet engine specialists are aboard a jet aircraft? None
>
> > but the LIABILITY if they somehow fail .....
>
> Same as any other ship.

Let me add a small thought here about liability and consequences of
disasters. Since most likely, the reactor would be loaded once, and then
welded shut, with a 0% chance of "exploding". If something should go
seriously wrong, the ship would sink to the bottom of the ocean, and all
would be well.

That is why from a safety point of view, nucelar powered ships are great!

And that is why flying nuclear powered things, are less great.

>> NOBODY in their right mind would   EVER insure that ! What DOES it cost
>> if San Diego
>>   is covered in radioactive mist ???
>>
>
> I'd consider that a net benefit, but it simply could not happen
>
>>   GOVERNMENTS can push all that aside, but NOT private
>>   entities.
>
> Private entities run governments.
>
>

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>>>>  in any useful way - but his giant rocket CAN transport
>>>>  LOTS of stuff into orbit or to the moon.
>>> Rockets are boring! I was space elevators and shooting magnetically
>>> accelerated loads into space!
>>
>>
>> And PRIME terrorist targets :-)
>
> This is the truth! But we'll guard those targets with lovely and spiritual
> Habermassian dialogue! ;)
>
>> Alas, human brains just aren't really wired for that.
>> There tend to be 'trades' - and 'stability' is often
>> one of them. 'Double-alpha' people, who have it all,
>> are VERY VERY rare.
>
> I wonder if it is an urban myth that the smarter someone is, the bigger the
> chance some mental problems?
>
>> BIRD brains ... there are some species that have
>> spectacular IQ in their little nut-sized brains.
>> The 'wiring' is a LOT better than in mammals.
>
> I like ravens. Very cute birds with personality!
>
>> Might be the dinos were a LOT smarter than we like
>> to believe ... lack of 'tech' does not = stupid.
>> Could be it took 65 million years for Socrates to
>> pick up where they left off :-)
>
> I vaguely remember a book from when I was a child that ended with the dinosaurs
> leaving the planet on a space ship. I have one distinct image from the end of
> the book when they are leaving. That's all I remember. I wonder if I made it up?
>
Don't know about the leaving, but "The Homecoming" by Barry B Longyear
has highly intelligent dinosaurs coming back to reclaim the earth as
their home.
--
-Don_from_AZ-

On 2024-12-23, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 06:09:56 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> -- Iris DeMent
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlaoR5m4L80

I first heard it when one of our little jamming group brought it up.
Nice song.

> You need the audiovisual version. I saw her about the time she released
> the album of gospel songs. She said she loved gospel singing but wasn't
> too sure about the religion that went with it.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgx_yoe2-Y4
>
> That the only political song she ever did afaik. It's from the '90s but is
> timeless.

Wow. She didn't pull any punches.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 12:19:02 +0100, D wrote:

> I wonder how many of my forefathers who remained pagans after the
> country officially became christian? Surely at least a few must have
> remained pagans for a couple of 100 of years after official christianity
> was implemented.

I doubt the priests dug too deeply into what the new converts really
believed.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19739568-tree-of-salvation

Murphy also translated the Heliand and in 'The Saxon Savior' discusses the
background.

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

The old beliefs didn't suddenly go away and were incorporated into the new
religion. That still happens today with missionaries to Africa or Latin
America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santer%C3%ADa

I imagine the local priests count them as Catholics.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:57:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> And whoever invented the term didn't even use the correct term. Woke is
> the past participle. Awoken correct. Or awake.
> So you know it was invented by uneducated people or people
> deliberatilytrying to seem that way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_English

The blacks were using 'woke' long before it was adopted by the left. I'm
sure you wouldn't have to go far to find English speakers like Yorkies
that are semi-intelligible.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 12:09:30 +0100, D wrote:

> I'm reading Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins Of The Internet
> right now, and a surprising amount of people in there came from a
> psychology background.

Nerds tend to be misfits with interesting backgrounds. The Boston chapter
of the IEEE was very much computer oriented and chasing new ideas. The New
Hampshire chapter was mostly classical electrical engineers who worked for
Public Service of NH, the power company. They were nice guys and all and
could throw nice picnics but the level of conversation was more about
baseball.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 12:26:27 +0100, D wrote:

> Jackson hole is mentioned, I think, in the lovely comedy series Silicon
> valley, so if it is mentioned there, surely it must be a tourist trap.

https://jacksonholemagazine.com/overtourism/

Yellowstone attracts a lot of people and Jackson Hole gets a lot of
exposure. Yellowstone and Grand Teton are separate for administration
purposes but the admission fee covers both so tourists gravitate south to
someplace they've heard of. West Yellowstone and Gardiner are the two
entry points in Montana and they're not as glitzy. There's also the east
entrance from Cody WY, but Cody is about 50 miles away and not
particularly interesting although the hotel prices don't reflect that.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024, Don_from_AZ wrote:

> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>>>>  in any useful way - but his giant rocket CAN transport
>>>>>  LOTS of stuff into orbit or to the moon.
>>>> Rockets are boring! I was space elevators and shooting magnetically
>>>> accelerated loads into space!
>>>
>>>
>>> And PRIME terrorist targets :-)
>>
>> This is the truth! But we'll guard those targets with lovely and spiritual
>> Habermassian dialogue! ;)
>>
>>> Alas, human brains just aren't really wired for that.
>>> There tend to be 'trades' - and 'stability' is often
>>> one of them. 'Double-alpha' people, who have it all,
>>> are VERY VERY rare.
>>
>> I wonder if it is an urban myth that the smarter someone is, the bigger the
>> chance some mental problems?
>>
>>> BIRD brains ... there are some species that have
>>> spectacular IQ in their little nut-sized brains.
>>> The 'wiring' is a LOT better than in mammals.
>>
>> I like ravens. Very cute birds with personality!
>>
>>> Might be the dinos were a LOT smarter than we like
>>> to believe ... lack of 'tech' does not = stupid.
>>> Could be it took 65 million years for Socrates to
>>> pick up where they left off :-)
>>
>> I vaguely remember a book from when I was a child that ended with the dinosaurs
>> leaving the planet on a space ship. I have one distinct image from the end of
>> the book when they are leaving. That's all I remember. I wonder if I made it up?
>>
> Don't know about the leaving, but "The Homecoming" by Barry B Longyear
> has highly intelligent dinosaurs coming back to reclaim the earth as
> their home.
>

Hmm, maybe it served as inspiration. This was a short book, not more than
40 pages or so with plenty of drawings. I was about 6 years old I think.

On 2024-12-23, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
> Alas 'Woke' Gens-Z/A2,
> even older and supposedly more informed, STILL
> believe in that sort of paradigm. Can't figure out
> how to wipe yer ass - wheeled-in with a needle
> in your arm once a month - you should be director
> of NASA or SecDef or Boeing CEO or something !

This is not a fair criticism of "woke liberals". There are plenty of
"conservative" politicians and their family members with a similar
feeling that no particular knowledge experience or subject matter
expertise is required to be Defense secretary, Director of National
Intelligence, ambassador to Israel or something.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 12:12:28 +0100, D wrote:

> Reminds me of the book Shoot to kill by Fairbairn, I think his
> philosophy was a lot about the intuitive way to shoot.

'Shooting to Live', I think, along with Sykes. I'm too lazy to go hunting
for the book.

The US Army published a manual 'Principles of Quick Kill' to go with a
training program. They used Daisy BB guns.

https://beaufortcountynow.com/post/19789

I adapted the idea to use with a BB pistol. With half decent lighting you
can see the BB in flight and correct sort of like trying to soak the cat
with a garden hose. (no, I'd never do something like that)

Airsoft works too and they make glow in the dark airsoft pellets for low
light practice.

For a while I did USPSA.

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

They're all about two handed grips, Weaver stance and so forth, which I
was not used to. I was never very good at it but I did learn from the
experience. It might be counter-productive in the real world. You engage
each target with a 'double tap' and move on to the next target. That could
be a bad habit to get into.

On 2024-12-23, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 12:26:27 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> Jackson hole is mentioned, I think, in the lovely comedy series Silicon
>> valley, so if it is mentioned there, surely it must be a tourist trap.
>
> https://jacksonholemagazine.com/overtourism/
>
> Yellowstone attracts a lot of people and Jackson Hole gets a lot of
> exposure. Yellowstone and Grand Teton are separate for administration
> purposes but the admission fee covers both so tourists gravitate south to
> someplace they've heard of. West Yellowstone and Gardiner are the two
> entry points in Montana and they're not as glitzy. There's also the east
> entrance from Cody WY, but Cody is about 50 miles away and not
> particularly interesting although the hotel prices don't reflect that.

This summer we flew our small plane down to Cody and rented a car to
do Yellowstone. Then, since we had gotten that far, we continued into
South Dakota to get a look at Mount Rushmore before Trump carves his
ugly mug on it.

We made a fuel stop at Butte, Montana. I was quite taken by it, and
would like to go back for a closer look. Not that we didn't get a
fairly close look while our poor little 172, all loaded up on a warm
summer day, struggled for altitude off that strip, which is at 5500
feet. We had to circle to get high enough to get through the pass
toward Bozeman.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On 2024-12-23, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> It seems the psychology education in the 60s where on to something! They
> created the best technological people in a generation, so a la carte seems
> to be very beneficial for innovation and following ones natural talents
> and interests.

At UC Santa Barbara, there is (was?) a "Department of Creative Studies".
The annual course catalog always just contains a notice that "The
Curriculum had not been finalized at the time of publication". It is
really an "invitation only Graduate school for undergraduates", effectively
by invitation only. My stepdaughter Birgitte was invited, and put together
a series of mathematics programs. She said that no class had more than a
dozen students, most had only half that many. And none of them were
"regular Americans". The other guy in her math seminars was Iranian.

But these are probably fading away these days.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 12:19:02 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> I wonder how many of my forefathers who remained pagans after the
>> country officially became christian? Surely at least a few must have
>> remained pagans for a couple of 100 of years after official christianity
>> was implemented.
>
> I doubt the priests dug too deeply into what the new converts really
> believed.
>
> https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19739568-tree-of-salvation
>
> Murphy also translated the Heliand and in 'The Saxon Savior' discusses the
> background.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliand
>
> The old beliefs didn't suddenly go away and were incorporated into the new
> religion. That still happens today with missionaries to Africa or Latin
> America.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santer%C3%ADa
>
> I imagine the local priests count them as Catholics.
>

I have a vague memory of reading somewhere that remains of paganism were
alive until the 1700s, but cannot find anything through a quick google. My
friendly neighbourhood AI insist on official death in the 12:th century.

Anecdotally, I heard a story that once my grandfather visited sweden, from
iceland. And for some reason he and my mother were visiting the country
side in the north where they have a very strange dialect. Apparently he
could speak with an old man there in icelandic, and the old man could
speak this very rare dialect and they would understand each other.

Fascinating how such pockets can survive.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 12:46:43 +0100, D wrote:

> Only cold below -25 C scares me. That's one advantage of having grown up
> in northern europe. I'm not saying I like cold, I don't, but it doesn't
> bother me that much.

Last winter we had close to a week of -29 C that really sucked. That's
abnormal and I could have really lived without it.

I feed a outdoor cat and got a little house with a heated pad. The cat
wasn't in her house and I didn't see her for the duration. I figured I'd
find a frozen cat in the spring but when it warmed up she reappeared. She
must have found a crawl space that was reasonably warm.

I'm reasonably happy to around 12 or so or even -18 on nice sunny days.
After a run of those 0 feels like t-shirt weather.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 12:09:30 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> I'm reading Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins Of The Internet
>> right now, and a surprising amount of people in there came from a
>> psychology background.
>
> Nerds tend to be misfits with interesting backgrounds. The Boston chapter
> of the IEEE was very much computer oriented and chasing new ideas. The New
> Hampshire chapter was mostly classical electrical engineers who worked for
> Public Service of NH, the power company. They were nice guys and all and
> could throw nice picnics but the level of conversation was more about
> baseball.
>

This is a strength of technologist culture! I sometimes fear that these
days with computer science degrees, and less diverse backgrounds,
something has been lost. =/

That is why I enjoy teaching at vocational schools. There you can still
get people with the most diverse backgrounds who became interested in
technology and want to switch careers. That can yield interesting
perspectives!