• Will raspberry get ECC support?

    From Jan Panteltje@3:770/3 to All on Thu Jan 7 10:33:46 2021
    Was reading this:
    https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/linus-torvalds-blames-intel-for-lack-of-ecc-ram-in-consumer-pcs/?comments=1

    with ever more RAM (now 8 GB) and raspberry used more and more for very serious things
    should that not be the next step?

    grin

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Richard Kettlewell@3:770/3 to Jan Panteltje on Thu Jan 7 14:49:52 2021
    Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> writes:
    Was reading this:
    https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/linus-torvalds-blames-intel-for-lack-of-ecc-ram-in-consumer-pcs/?comments=1

    with ever more RAM (now 8 GB) and raspberry used more and more for
    very serious things
    should that not be the next step?

    A large-scale study of Google servers found that roughly 32 percent
    of all servers (and 8 percent of all DIMMs) in Google's fleet
    experience at least one memory error per year.

    ...i.e. about one error per server per three years. (Perhaps even lower frequency on consumer hardware since it generally has less RAM.) I don’t think consumers should expect to see their computers get noticably more reliable overall if ECC RAM does become ubiquitous, because that failure
    rate is totally swamped by software bugs.

    I have once seen a inarguable memory error in the wild, affecting the
    cached copy of /bin/cat on a Linux box, about 20Y ago.

    --
    https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Theo@3:770/3 to Jan Panteltje on Thu Jan 7 16:37:28 2021
    Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Was reading this:
    https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/linus-torvalds-blames-intel-for-lack-of-ecc-ram-in-consumer-pcs/?comments=1

    with ever more RAM (now 8 GB) and raspberry used more and more for very serious things
    should that not be the next step?

    The Pi is a low cost computer. Given that ECC requires more memory (36 bits for every 32 of data), who is paying?

    (noting that ECC is extremely uncommon in mobile devices, 36-bit wide LPDDR4 chips may be hard to find)

    Theo

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Martin Gregorie@3:770/3 to Theo on Thu Jan 7 18:12:30 2021
    On Thu, 07 Jan 2021 16:37:28 +0000, Theo wrote:

    Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Was reading this:
    https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/linus-torvalds-blames-intel- for-lack-of-ecc-ram-in-consumer-pcs/?comments=1

    with ever more RAM (now 8 GB) and raspberry used more and more for very
    serious things should that not be the next step?

    The Pi is a low cost computer. Given that ECC requires more memory (36
    bits for every 32 of data), who is paying?

    (noting that ECC is extremely uncommon in mobile devices, 36-bit wide
    LPDDR4 chips may be hard to find)

    From an article in The Register, if you're running on fairly recent Intel
    chips you won't have ECC memory unless you're on Xeons - none of their consumer-grade of laptop MPUs support ECC, and because they don't, the motherboards don't have the data lines needed to connect the extra bits.


    --
    --
    Martin | martin at
    Gregorie | gregorie dot org

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Joe@3:770/3 to Martin Gregorie on Thu Jan 7 19:12:13 2021
    On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 18:12:30 -0000 (UTC)
    Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:

    On Thu, 07 Jan 2021 16:37:28 +0000, Theo wrote:

    Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Was reading this:
    https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/linus-torvalds-blames-intel-

    for-lack-of-ecc-ram-in-consumer-pcs/?comments=1

    with ever more RAM (now 8 GB) and raspberry used more and more for
    very serious things should that not be the next step?

    The Pi is a low cost computer. Given that ECC requires more memory
    (36 bits for every 32 of data), who is paying?

    (noting that ECC is extremely uncommon in mobile devices, 36-bit
    wide LPDDR4 chips may be hard to find)

    From an article in The Register, if you're running on fairly recent
    Intel chips you won't have ECC memory unless you're on Xeons - none
    of their consumer-grade of laptop MPUs support ECC, and because they
    don't, the motherboards don't have the data lines needed to connect
    the extra bits.


    RAM is enormously more reliable than it was forty years ago and of
    course much more compact. Early digital video equipment was built with
    RAM ICs (1-16k*bits*) in sockets because of their poor reliability,
    which became poorer still because of the sockets. A machine built around
    a Data General Nova had three diagnostics available for its 32kB of RAM,
    which was made of 256 1kb ICs (on two 15" square PCBs). Video frame
    stores, needing half a megabyte, only became practical as reliability
    and density got much higher.

    --
    Joe

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Anssi Saari@3:770/3 to Jan Panteltje on Fri Jan 8 18:04:05 2021
    Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> writes:

    Was reading this:
    https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/linus-torvalds-blames-intel-for-lack-of-ecc-ram-in-consumer-pcs/?comments=1

    with ever more RAM (now 8 GB) and raspberry used more and more for very serious things
    should that not be the next step?

    I wish. I think it's very doubtful Broadcom will do that. It's up to
    them to add that support in the SoC's memory controller first.

    Still, the RPi might actually make a decent ARM based computer one of
    these years. I just saw a mini-ITX carrier board for the compute module
    4 at https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/over-board-raspberry-pi-4-mini-itx-motherboard#/
    but I'll pass. I'd like two SATA ports and one m.2. Odroid H2 but in a
    standard form factor and an ARM CPU in other words.

    As for a PC with ECC RAM, my file server has it and it wasn't that
    expensive a system but then it's already quite old. I'm planning to
    upgrade my gaming and general desktop PC soon and for that ECC RAM seems
    very slow and somewhat expensive compared to non-ECC.

    Oh and as for Intel's stupidity in this and other market segmentation
    ideals I fully agree with Torvalds. I don't think it's a particularly
    bold position either as the Ars article says, more like stating the
    obvious.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Theo@3:770/3 to Martin Gregorie on Fri Jan 8 22:16:13 2021
    Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:
    From an article in The Register, if you're running on fairly recent Intel chips you won't have ECC memory unless you're on Xeons - none of their consumer-grade of laptop MPUs support ECC, and because they don't, the motherboards don't have the data lines needed to connect the extra bits.

    My current laptop comes in an i9-10885H and a Xeon W-10885M version (among other options). They're identical but for the ECC support - they're the
    same die, but the i9 has ECC disabled. This is just Intel's market segmentation. There's no reason why they couldn't enable ECC across many of their parts if they wanted to - which is what AMD has done.

    Theo

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From David Griffith@3:770/3 to Jan Panteltje on Fri Jan 8 22:50:44 2021
    Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Was reading this:
    https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/linus-torvalds-blames-intel-for-lack-of-ecc-ram-in-consumer-pcs/?comments=1

    with ever more RAM (now 8 GB) and raspberry used more and more for
    very serious things should that not be the next step?

    Something everyone here seems to be missing is that ECC provides some
    degree of protection from deliberate attacks meant to flip bits or read arbitrary portions of memory otherwise off-limits. The best known of
    these is Rowhammer. Now, I grant that a new Rowhammer attack has been discovered that works even on ECC memory. It does show, however, that
    better ECC memory design might entirely fix this problem. That was a
    big part of Linus's concerns.


    --
    David Griffith
    dave@661.org

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jan Panteltje@3:770/3 to David Griffith on Sat Jan 9 08:23:38 2021
    On a sunny day (Fri, 8 Jan 2021 22:50:44 -0000 (UTC)) it happened dave@661.org (David Griffith) wrote in <rtank2$3vb$1@frotz.eternal-september.org>:

    Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Was reading this:
    https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/linus-torvalds-blames-intel-for-lack-of-ecc-ram-in-consumer-pcs/?comments=1

    with ever more RAM (now 8 GB) and raspberry used more and more for
    very serious things should that not be the next step?

    Something everyone here seems to be missing is that ECC provides some
    degree of protection from deliberate attacks meant to flip bits or read >arbitrary portions of memory otherwise off-limits. The best known of
    these is Rowhammer. Now, I grant that a new Rowhammer attack has been >discovered that works even on ECC memory. It does show, however, that
    better ECC memory design might entirely fix this problem. That was a
    big part of Linus's concerns.

    I was more thinking along the lines where people board SpaceX flights to Mars and bring the lightest possible personal computers with them: raspberries
    High radiation levels...
    Or astronauts in earth orbit, or high altitude flights...
    Moonbase

    Sitting on Mars without a raspberry to play with ...imagine...
    As to radiation, I moved house a month or so ago, been logging radiation for years
    http://panteltje.com/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif
    note the sudden increase,
    those are counts per minute from
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic/

    Why?
    Maybe the neighbors are building a bomb?
    the extra radiation dropped a bit after I hovered the place a couple of times but not much.



    Of course ECC would be nice to have once the rad levels go way up when trump presses the red button in despair.
    Or maybe he will just ask for political asylum in Saudi Arabia...

    zorry for drifting on the topic

    Yes, rowhammer, not much is safe, long ago when hacking was less known I hacked some sat pay-TV, did not take long.
    Nothing is safe IMO.
    You have to be just willing, motivated, dedicated, removed it from my site when some politica started jumping on a chair
    and screamed 'Hackers!!' like that woman in the cartoon does when she sees a mouse, calls the cat, well you know who always wins
    no not the cat.

    This is very recent and nice:
    https://ninjalab.io/a-side-journey-to-titan/
    I did read the paper last night and those guys have the dedication and persistence, nice work!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Ahem A Rivet's Shot@3:770/3 to Jan Panteltje on Sat Jan 9 08:57:26 2021
    On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 08:23:38 GMT
    Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    As to radiation, I moved house a month or so ago, been logging radiation
    for years http://panteltje.com/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif note the sudden increase, those are counts per minute from
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic/

    Why?

    Is there a radon barrier under your house ?

    --
    Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
    The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
    You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Ahem A Rivet's Shot on Sat Jan 9 09:24:59 2021
    On 09/01/2021 08:57, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
    On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 08:23:38 GMT
    Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    As to radiation, I moved house a month or so ago, been logging radiation
    for years
    http://panteltje.com/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif
    note the sudden increase, those are counts per minute from
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic/

    Why?

    Is there a radon barrier under your house ?


    is that µS/h?

    If so its normal for a granite style area.
    get worried when it isn't a click every 5 seconds, but a high pitched scream.....


    Normal background is around 5mS/Yr
    Granite areas up to 20mS/yr
    Some places up to 200mS/yr.

    The amount before cancer risks measurably increase is massively more.

    The amount before the Japanese government declares an emergency is
    massively less.

    The amount before Jane Fonda declares an emergency is zero.


    --
    "I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
    This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
    all women"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jan Panteltje@3:770/3 to Shot on Sat Jan 9 10:11:10 2021
    On a sunny day (Sat, 9 Jan 2021 08:57:26 +0000) it happened Ahem A Rivet's
    Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in <20210109085726.1c9cf29442393b9fef178f66@eircom.net>:

    On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 08:23:38 GMT
    Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    As to radiation, I moved house a month or so ago, been logging radiation
    for years
    http://panteltje.com/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif
    note the sudden increase, those are counts per minute from
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic/

    Why?

    Is there a radon barrier under your house ?

    Yes I have thought about radon,
    no real basement here, build quite a while ago, could be.
    There is some granite countertop in the kitchen on the other side of the wall of where the radiation counter is, will go and have a count there later.
    https://www.epa.gov/radiation/granite-countertops-and-radiation
    Or maybe buy a real radon meter, quite expensive, 100$ or so on Alieepress, about twice as much locally.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Andy Burns@3:770/3 to Jan Panteltje on Sat Jan 9 09:56:36 2021
    Jan Panteltje wrote:

    I moved house a month or so ago, been logging radiation for years
    http://panteltje.com/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif
    note the sudden increase,
    those are counts per minute from
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic/

    Why?

    Did your new neighbours give you some bananas as a moving-in gift?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jan Panteltje@3:770/3 to Philosopher on Sat Jan 9 10:41:01 2021
    On a sunny day (Sat, 9 Jan 2021 09:24:59 +0000) it happened The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <rtbspc$ggu$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 09/01/2021 08:57, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
    On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 08:23:38 GMT
    Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    As to radiation, I moved house a month or so ago, been logging radiation >>> for years
    http://panteltje.com/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif
    note the sudden increase, those are counts per minute from
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic/

    Why?

    Is there a radon barrier under your house ?


    is that µS/h?

    If so its normal for a granite style area.
    get worried when it isn't a click every 5 seconds, but a high pitched >scream.....


    Normal background is around 5mS/Yr
    Granite areas up to 20mS/yr
    Some places up to 200mS/yr.

    The amount before cancer risks measurably increase is massively more.

    The amount before the Japanese government declares an emergency is
    massively less.

    The amount before Jane Fonda declares an emergency is zero.

    :-)
    Yea, anyways I also designed and build a gamma spectrometer, been some years since I played with all that,
    was even subscribed to some related google group at the time.
    The gamma spectrometer and that GM counter is sitting next to me:
    http://panteltje.com/pub/gamma_spectrometer_plus_probe_plus_geiger_counter_2_IMG_4185.JPG
    had no time yet to look a this, the PMT (in the large green cardboard tube) needs changing (old Russian one abused by me).

    And I have this one in pieces somewhere:
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/sc_pic/
    much better PMT, using scintillator crystals from ebay....
    note the radium and uranium samples
    been 'under construction' for >14 years now....
    nuclear war did not happen yet... ;-)

    And and, well...
    this one is smaller and also gives very high levels here:
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/
    it records GPS location and radiation level to SDcard, can be used for prospecting...
    my adventure in using / programming OLED displays..

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jan Panteltje@3:770/3 to usenet@andyburns.uk on Sat Jan 9 10:41:01 2021
    On a sunny day (Sat, 9 Jan 2021 09:56:36 +0000) it happened Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in <i5tcukFl1khU1@mid.individual.net>:

    Jan Panteltje wrote:

    I moved house a month or so ago, been logging radiation for years
    http://panteltje.com/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif
    note the sudden increase,
    those are counts per minute from
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic/

    Why?

    Did your new neighbours give you some bananas as a moving-in gift?

    Na,I got some Banquet Bar :-)
    Nice

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Jan Panteltje on Sat Jan 9 11:58:52 2021
    On 09/01/2021 10:41, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 9 Jan 2021 09:24:59 +0000) it happened The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <rtbspc$ggu$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 09/01/2021 08:57, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
    On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 08:23:38 GMT
    Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    As to radiation, I moved house a month or so ago, been logging radiation >>>> for years
    http://panteltje.com/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif
    note the sudden increase, those are counts per minute from
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic/

    Why?

    Is there a radon barrier under your house ?


    is that µS/h?

    If so its normal for a granite style area.
    get worried when it isn't a click every 5 seconds, but a high pitched
    scream.....


    Normal background is around 5mS/Yr
    Granite areas up to 20mS/yr
    Some places up to 200mS/yr.

    The amount before cancer risks measurably increase is massively more.

    The amount before the Japanese government declares an emergency is
    massively less.

    The amount before Jane Fonda declares an emergency is zero.

    :-)
    Yea, anyways I also designed and build a gamma spectrometer, been some years since I played with all that,
    was even subscribed to some related google group at the time.
    The gamma spectrometer and that GM counter is sitting next to me:
    http://panteltje.com/pub/gamma_spectrometer_plus_probe_plus_geiger_counter_2_IMG_4185.JPG
    had no time yet to look a this, the PMT (in the large green cardboard tube) needs changing (old Russian one abused by me).

    And I have this one in pieces somewhere:
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/sc_pic/
    much better PMT, using scintillator crystals from ebay....
    note the radium and uranium samples
    been 'under construction' for >14 years now....
    nuclear war did not happen yet... ;-)

    From what I have read on latest research radiation is not a significant
    hazard beyond about 50% more than the blast radius anyway.
    If you dont get vapourised or smashed to bits, you probably wont die of
    cancer.

    The LNT model which was used to scare people in the 1960s has been
    completely discredited.


    And and, well...
    this one is smaller and also gives very high levels here:
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/
    it records GPS location and radiation level to SDcard, can be used for prospecting...
    my adventure in using / programming OLED displays..


    what are you using as a detector?


    --
    Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle
    more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
    their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
    battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
    that they are dead.
    Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From A. Dumas@3:770/3 to Jan Panteltje on Sat Jan 9 14:19:34 2021
    Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Later ... we had the Chernobyl fallout, and where I worked the filters in
    the aircos were hot (radiation) and had to be properly disposed.
    That made me want to measure things, by that time I lost my nuculear fear btw,
    But nobody died, vegetables in your garden you were not recommended to eat.

    From "Int. J. Cancer: 119, 1224–1235 (2006)" via https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/44334601/Estimates_of_the_cancer_burden_in_Europe20160402-19341-ugwo1h.pdf

    "The risk projections suggest that by now Chernobyl may have caused about
    1,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 4,000 cases of other cancers in Europe, representing about 0.01% of all incident cancers since the accident. Models pre- dict that by 2065 about 16,000 (95% UI 3,400–72,000) cases of thy-
    roid cancer and 25,000 (95% UI 11,000–59,000) cases of other can- cers may
    be expected due to radiation from the accident, whereas several hundred
    million cancer cases are expected from other causes. Although these
    estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty, they provide an
    indication of the order of magnitude of the possible impact of the
    Chernobyl accident. It is unlikely that the cancer bur- den from the
    largest radiological accident to date could be detected by monitoring
    national cancer statistics. Indeed, results of analyses of time trends in cancer incidence and mortality in Europe do not, at present, indicate any increase in cancer rates—other than of thyroid cancer in the most contaminated regions—that can be clearly attributed to radiation from the Chernobyl accident."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jan Panteltje@3:770/3 to Philosopher on Sat Jan 9 13:51:10 2021
    On a sunny day (Sat, 9 Jan 2021 11:58:52 +0000) it happened The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <rtc5pt$bug$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 09/01/2021 10:41, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 9 Jan 2021 09:24:59 +0000) it happened The Natural
    Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <rtbspc$ggu$1@dont-email.me>:

    And I have this one in pieces somewhere:
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/sc_pic/
    much better PMT, using scintillator crystals from ebay....
    note the radium and uranium samples
    been 'under construction' for >14 years now....
    nuclear war did not happen yet... ;-)

    From what I have read on latest research radiation is not a significant
    hazard beyond about 50% more than the blast radius anyway.
    If you dont get vapourised or smashed to bits, you probably wont die of >cancer.

    Indeed, I worked in nuculear {} twice... the first time I quit the first day as I found the guys were careless.
    Then serendipity had it I worked there again, in an other department, years later.
    Some years after I left and started my own business I did read in the paper that whole place got contaminated..

    It all depends.
    Later ... we had the Chernobyl fallout, and where I worked the filters in the aircos were hot (radiation) and had to be properly disposed.
    That made me want to measure things, by that time I lost my nuculear fear btw, But nobody died, vegetables in your garden you were not recommended to eat.
    I did see a youtube video about the Chernobyl area where wildlife is flourishing,
    mostly due to the absence of people hunting it I think.
    That video was removed...

    In the F*ckupshima disaster exactly 1 person died of radiation IIRC.
    Hundreds die each year in coal mine accidents..

    Ruling the masses by fear is what governments do now, I did lookup some numbers and here in 2018 more people died than in 2020..
    Big farma sells and it sells untested mRNA shit that several very healthy people have already died from and is not tested over generations,
    so will the kids you have be OK? Remember softenon.
    It is about big money control and politicians that are puppets of big money and completely clueless about medicine
    but abuse the lockdown to control everything from chat groups to people moving about.
    UNLESS there is a revolt they will keep locking everybody down then give you a chip implant
    so they can remotely kill you if you do not comply with their follies, now they use the police for that.
    OK,


    The LNT model which was used to scare people in the 1960s has been
    completely discredited.


    And and, well...
    this one is smaller and also gives very high levels here:
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/
    it records GPS location and radiation level to SDcard, can be used for prospecting...
    my adventure in using / programming OLED displays..


    what are you using as a detector?

    That one uses a small geiger muller tube, basically contains gas between 2 high voltage electrodes that gets ionized if high energy particles hit it
    and then becomes conductive for a moment causing a small current peak.
    Several such high energy particles per minute is normal at ground level, on airplane level with less protection by the atmosphere
    much more, in space even more than that
    scroll down for the picture of the tube next to the GPS module, or:
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/gm_pic2_component_side_IMG_4408.JPG

    For gamma spectrometer I use crystals from ebay in front of the photo-multiplier tubes like these:
    NaI(Tl) 30x30 Scintillation Crystal Detector
    or plastic Scintillation rods
    http://panteltje.com/pub/crystal_relatve_to_world_img_3123.jpg
    both give of a light flash when a high energy particle hits, this is then amplified very many times by the PMT (photo mutiplier) so you
    get an other impulse that you can count, and in the case of that setup can measure the amplitude of,
    this amplitude is related to the amount of energy for each particle, and that depends on what material is 'decaying' releasing the particle
    so you can identify what radiates, and see who's bomb it was.... from the spectral composition.
    Enough info?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From TimS@3:770/3 to All on Sat Jan 9 14:29:32 2021
    On 09 Jan 2021 at 13:51:10 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    In the F*ckupshima disaster exactly 1 person died of radiation IIRC.
    Hundreds die each year in coal mine accidents..

    I'm not even sure one died, although I've not been following those aspects
    that closely. Meanwhile 25,000 or so are missing/dead from the tsunami.

    Big farma sells and it sells untested mRNA shit that several very healthy people have already died from and is not tested over generations,

    Which untested mRNA would that be, then?

    --
    Tim

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Jan Panteltje on Sat Jan 9 14:40:10 2021
    On 09/01/2021 13:51, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 9 Jan 2021 11:58:52 +0000) it happened The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <rtc5pt$bug$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 09/01/2021 10:41, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 9 Jan 2021 09:24:59 +0000) it happened The Natural
    Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <rtbspc$ggu$1@dont-email.me>: >>>
    And I have this one in pieces somewhere:
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/sc_pic/
    much better PMT, using scintillator crystals from ebay....
    note the radium and uranium samples
    been 'under construction' for >14 years now....
    nuclear war did not happen yet... ;-)

    From what I have read on latest research radiation is not a significant
    hazard beyond about 50% more than the blast radius anyway.
    If you dont get vapourised or smashed to bits, you probably wont die of
    cancer.

    Indeed, I worked in nuculear {} twice... the first time I quit the first day as I found the guys were careless.
    Then serendipity had it I worked there again, in an other department, years later.
    Some years after I left and started my own business I did read in the paper that whole place got contaminated..

    It all depends.
    Later ... we had the Chernobyl fallout, and where I worked the filters in the aircos were hot (radiation) and had to be properly disposed.
    That made me want to measure things, by that time I lost my nuculear fear btw,
    But nobody died, vegetables in your garden you were not recommended to eat.
    I did see a youtube video about the Chernobyl area where wildlife is flourishing,
    mostly due to the absence of people hunting it I think.
    That video was removed...

    The really important news about Chernobyl was that the predictions
    using LNT were in excess of 150,000 cancers across Ukraine and Eastern
    Europe. In fact only 60 people died and there were only 3000 preventable
    (if they had been given iodine pills) and curable thyroid cancers right
    there in Pripyat. .

    More people are dying *every day* from Covid 19.


    In the F*ckupshima disaster exactly 1 person died of radiation IIRC.

    No one died from radiation at all, nor will. The company decided not to
    defend being sued by someone who got cancer's relatives, that's all.
    IIRC only one person died on site from a heart attack
    About 20 people died as a result if the pointless evacuation.

    The Italian embassy was recalled from Tokyo to Rome, where background
    radiation was *ten times higher*.



    Hundreds die each year in coal mine accidents..

    Ruling the masses by fear is what governments do now, I did lookup some numbers
    and here in 2018 more people died than in 2020..
    Big farma sells and it sells untested mRNA shit that several very healthy people have already died from and is not tested over generations,
    so will the kids you have be OK? Remember softenon.
    It is about big money control and politicians that are puppets of big money and completely clueless about medicine
    but abuse the lockdown to control everything from chat groups to people moving about.
    UNLESS there is a revolt they will keep locking everybody down then give you a chip implant
    so they can remotely kill you if you do not comply with their follies, now they use the police for that.
    OK,


    Not sure about the chip implant, and I think they are actually very
    scared about this virus.

    I never trust what a government says,I watch what they do. They haven't
    stopped flying to climate conferences or sold their beachside houses or
    gone in for a crash program of nuclear power - they know that renewable
    energy is profitable crap and doesn't work to reduce emissions, and they
    are not worried. So climate change isn't an emergency, its a political
    power and profit opportunity. Same for electric cars, but they are
    wearing masks and isolating themselves, so I think this one is real.


    The LNT model which was used to scare people in the 1960s has been
    completely discredited.


    And and, well...
    this one is smaller and also gives very high levels here:
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/
    it records GPS location and radiation level to SDcard, can be used for prospecting...
    my adventure in using / programming OLED displays..


    what are you using as a detector?

    That one uses a small geiger muller tube, basically contains gas between 2 high voltage electrodes that gets ionized if high energy particles hit it
    and then becomes conductive for a moment causing a small current peak. Several such high energy particles per minute is normal at ground level, on airplane level with less protection by the atmosphere
    much more, in space even more than that
    scroll down for the picture of the tube next to the GPS module, or:
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/gm_pic2_component_side_IMG_4408.JPG

    For gamma spectrometer I use crystals from ebay in front of the photo-multiplier tubes like these:
    NaI(Tl) 30x30 Scintillation Crystal Detector
    or plastic Scintillation rods
    http://panteltje.com/pub/crystal_relatve_to_world_img_3123.jpg
    both give of a light flash when a high energy particle hits, this is then amplified very many times by the PMT (photo mutiplier) so you
    get an other impulse that you can count, and in the case of that setup can measure the amplitude of,
    this amplitude is related to the amount of energy for each particle, and that depends on what material is 'decaying' releasing the particle
    so you can identify what radiates, and see who's bomb it was.... from the spectral composition.
    Enough info?


    More would be nice, but this is not the time and place,

    I have always thought that if everybody had a Geiger counter on their
    smart phone, they would be a lot less scared of radiation.






    --
    "And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch".

    Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Martin Gregorie@3:770/3 to Jan Panteltje on Sat Jan 9 14:59:21 2021
    On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 13:51:10 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

    I did see a youtube video about the Chernobyl area where wildlife is flourishing, mostly due to the absence of people hunting it I think.
    That video was removed...

    You might like this site: http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

    Its owned by a Ukrainian girl with a nuclear physicist father and a big motorbike, who likes riding it in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. She takes interesting photos.


    In the F*ckupshima disaster exactly 1 person died of radiation IIRC.
    Hundreds die each year in coal mine accidents..

    So far Chernobyl was the worst, followed by Kystym and Windscale.
    Apart from them, there have been another 7 where casualties where oll in
    single digits and external contamination was minimal.

    The full list is here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents#Accident_categories



    --
    --
    Martin | martin at
    Gregorie | gregorie dot org

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to A. Dumas on Sat Jan 9 14:55:00 2021
    On 09/01/2021 14:19, A. Dumas wrote:
    Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Later ... we had the Chernobyl fallout, and where I worked the filters in
    the aircos were hot (radiation) and had to be properly disposed.
    That made me want to measure things, by that time I lost my nuculear fear btw,
    But nobody died, vegetables in your garden you were not recommended to eat.

    From "Int. J. Cancer: 119, 1224–1235 (2006)" via https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/44334601/Estimates_of_the_cancer_burden_in_Europe20160402-19341-ugwo1h.pdf

    "The risk projections suggest that by now Chernobyl may have caused about 1,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 4,000 cases of other cancers in Europe, representing about 0.01% of all incident cancers since the accident. Models pre- dict that by 2065 about 16,000 (95% UI 3,400–72,000) cases of thy- roid cancer and 25,000 (95% UI 11,000–59,000) cases of other can- cers may be expected due to radiation from the accident, whereas several hundred million cancer cases are expected from other causes. Although these
    estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty, they provide an
    indication of the order of magnitude of the possible impact of the
    Chernobyl accident. It is unlikely that the cancer bur- den from the
    largest radiological accident to date could be detected by monitoring national cancer statistics. Indeed, results of analyses of time trends in cancer incidence and mortality in Europe do not, at present, indicate any increase in cancer rates—other than of thyroid cancer in the most contaminated regions—that can be clearly attributed to radiation from the Chernobyl accident."

    Well yes, the 'risk projections' is a mealy mouthed way of saying
    'models based on assumptions'

    At least the conclusions is 'too small to be reliably measured'

    And what assumptions? LNT?

    Almost certainly because no one else has really come up with anything
    more accurate. We know LNT is between 100 and 1000 times too
    pessimistic, at any elevated dose levels and the truth is that peak
    dosage is far more important than cumulative chronic low level dosage.

    Exclusion zone at Chernobyl is quite low - there are hot spots but
    mostly its in the 20-50mSv/y level. Ramsar in Iran has a background of 50-200mSv/y. It has a lightly *lower* cancer rate than average. (it's
    not statistically significant IIRC)

    The key to cellular mutations seems to be to get enough radiation to
    cause BOTH strands of DNA to mutate identically before the cell dies.
    That a very slender chance at low dosages.

    If you get radiotherapy *enough radiation to kill you* if applied whole
    body is given. Several Sv in a short time. There is a 15% increased
    chance of unrelated cancers developing as a result.

    And that's it. a few people died at Hiroshima from radiation induced
    cancers a few years later, but the majority of people died then and
    there from blast and incineration or in the next few weeks from massive radiation exposure. Hiroshima was never cleaned up, and its a healthy
    place to live now.





    --
    "When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

    Josef Stalin

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From alister@3:770/3 to TimS on Sat Jan 9 18:02:18 2021
    On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 14:29:32 +0000, TimS wrote:

    On 09 Jan 2021 at 13:51:10 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    In the F*ckupshima disaster exactly 1 person died of radiation IIRC.
    Hundreds die each year in coal mine accidents..

    I'm not even sure one died, although I've not been following those
    aspects that closely. Meanwhile 25,000 or so are missing/dead from the tsunami.

    Big farma sells and it sells untested mRNA shit that several very
    healthy people have already died from and is not tested over
    generations,

    Which untested mRNA would that be, then?

    that final paragraph from Jan destroyed any credibility he may have had &
    is simply not worth continuing further




    --
    Second Law of Business Meetings:
    If there are two possible ways to spell a person's name, you
    will pick the wrong one.

    Corollary:
    If there is only one way to spell a name,
    you will spell it wrong, anyway.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Dennis Lee Bieber@3:770/3 to All on Sat Jan 9 16:59:59 2021
    On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 08:23:38 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> declaimed the following:

    I was more thinking along the lines where people board SpaceX flights to Mars >and bring the lightest possible personal computers with them: raspberries >High radiation levels...
    Or astronauts in earth orbit, or high altitude flights...
    Moonbase

    Any device typically allowed on a space mission has to undergo rigorous testing for all sorts of environmental situations... Both from the device (can't have it out-gassing corrosive vapors under reduced air pressure) and
    to the device (radiation hardening if it has any safety critical
    functions).


    --
    Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com http://wlfraed.microdiversity.freeddns.org/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Martin Gregorie@3:770/3 to Dennis Lee Bieber on Sat Jan 9 23:24:44 2021
    On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 16:59:59 -0500, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:

    On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 08:23:38 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com>
    declaimed the following:

    I was more thinking along the lines where people board SpaceX flights to >>Mars and bring the lightest possible personal computers with them: >>raspberries High radiation levels...
    Or astronauts in earth orbit, or high altitude flights...
    Moonbase

    Any device typically allowed on a space mission has to undergo
    rigorous
    testing for all sorts of environmental situations... Both from the
    device (can't have it out-gassing corrosive vapors under reduced air pressure) and to the device (radiation hardening if it has any safety critical functions).

    I did read recently that they've been using Plain Old laptops on ISS with
    no radiation-related problems - but of course that is inside the Earth's magnetic field, so there's a fair amount of shielding from ionised
    particles.



    --
    --
    Martin | martin at
    Gregorie | gregorie dot org

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jan Panteltje@3:770/3 to wlfraed@ix.netcom.com on Sun Jan 10 08:29:49 2021
    On a sunny day (Sat, 09 Jan 2021 16:59:59 -0500) it happened Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> wrote in <tl9kvf53avo2c6n1u76s62u8oi97njo561@4ax.com>:

    On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 08:23:38 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> >declaimed the following:

    I was more thinking along the lines where people board SpaceX flights to Mars >>and bring the lightest possible personal computers with them: raspberries >>High radiation levels...
    Or astronauts in earth orbit, or high altitude flights...
    Moonbase

    Any device typically allowed on a space mission has to undergo rigorous
    testing for all sorts of environmental situations... Both from the device >(can't have it out-gassing corrosive vapors under reduced air pressure) and >to the device (radiation hardening if it has any safety critical
    functions).

    Indeed, I know, but have you seen the SpaceX pictures of their big spacecraft traveling to mars
    with passengers in it using their laptops?
    I have commented on that in a youtube video long time ago.
    Laptops would not last very long...
    Neither would the Tesla car's electronics Musk sent to deep space...
    OK he is selling, needs some salt....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jan Panteltje@3:770/3 to Philosopher on Sun Jan 10 08:43:18 2021
    On a sunny day (Sat, 9 Jan 2021 14:40:10 +0000) it happened The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <rtcf8b$en2$1@dont-email.me>:

    Not sure about the chip implant, and I think they are actually very
    scared about this virus.

    There is already a company trying to market such a chip so you need no purse or card
    just walk past the gate of the supermarket....
    On chip polymerase test in your blood could easily detect you being 'infected' and refused access or triggering the crocodile trapdoors in each street
    hey I am not working for 'ollywood, but you guys are free to use this idea in the next sci fi movie.


    I never trust what a government says,I watch what they do. They haven't >stopped flying to climate conferences or sold their beachside houses or
    gone in for a crash program of nuclear power - they know that renewable >energy is profitable crap and doesn't work to reduce emissions, and they
    are not worried. So climate change isn't an emergency, its a political
    power and profit opportunity. Same for electric cars, but they are
    wearing masks and isolating themselves, so I think this one is real.

    Climate change is well known and why, does not depend on CO2 or human activity _at_all_:
    http://old.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm
    scroll down to
    Milankovich Cycles
    All those orbital effects add up, and anybody who can add some sine waves
    can see when and how the earth climate will change, scroll down all the way for the
    cool and warm periods.
    The whole snake oil started IIRC with Al Gore and polar bears.
    The above website was their main site it was replaced and they renamed this one old.world....
    As the planet orbits are related, so is climate change on Mars, where [apart for Al Gore?] no humans have a cottage:
    https://twitter.com/HiRISE/status/1223260442971164672
    shows current ice melting and things collapsing due to warming on mars (2 pictures in sequence, works in Chrome on raspi4).


    The LNT model which was used to scare people in the 1960s has been
    completely discredited.

    There also was once the 'Club of Rome', LOL


    I have always thought that if everybody had a Geiger counter on their
    smart phone, they would be a lot less scared of radiation.

    That thing I build is still big, but it does fit in a pocket, I have carried
    it around in my pocket while it was logging location and radiation levels
    in the super market to see if the mushrooms and other food imported from the eastern part of Europe were radioactive,
    those were not.

    Japan is going to release the stored radioactive water from that accident in the sea:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-54566978
    the fish you eat,,,
    Investment in a simple detector is worth it I think.
    https://blogthinkbig.com/using-a-smartphone-to-measure-levels-of-radiation-exposure
    in camera sensor chips exposed to strong gamma radiation you get occasional short time pixel errors,
    I think subtracting frame to frame would show this, better done in the dark perhaps...
    Wrote some motion detection software for a CMOS webcam >20 year ago.. used frame subtraction.
    https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/174564-youll-be-amazed-at-how-these-government-researchers-turned-your-smartphones-camera-into-a-radiation-dose-meter

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jan Panteltje@3:770/3 to alister.ware@ntlworld.com on Sun Jan 10 08:46:56 2021
    On a sunny day (Sat, 09 Jan 2021 18:02:18 GMT) it happened alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote in <KcmKH.291427$oT47.247116@fx20.ams4>:

    On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 14:29:32 +0000, TimS wrote:

    On 09 Jan 2021 at 13:51:10 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    In the F*ckupshima disaster exactly 1 person died of radiation IIRC.
    Hundreds die each year in coal mine accidents..

    I'm not even sure one died, although I've not been following those
    aspects that closely. Meanwhile 25,000 or so are missing/dead from the
    tsunami.

    Big farma sells and it sells untested mRNA shit that several very
    healthy people have already died from and is not tested over
    generations,

    Which untested mRNA would that be, then?

    that final paragraph from Jan destroyed any credibility he may have had &
    is simply not worth continuing further

    You act like an other clueless government paid brainwashed troll that tries to bend reality.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Ahem A Rivet's Shot@3:770/3 to Jan Panteltje on Sun Jan 10 09:48:04 2021
    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 08:29:49 GMT
    Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Indeed, I know, but have you seen the SpaceX pictures of their big
    spacecraft traveling to mars with passengers in it using their laptops?

    Artist's impressions, completely meaningless.

    Neither would the Tesla car's electronics Musk sent to deep space...

    It wasn't supposed to, it was just a prettier form of scrap steel
    than is usually used as a test load. Musk is a showman.

    OK he is selling, needs some salt....

    Much salt.

    --
    Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
    The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
    You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Pancho@3:770/3 to alister on Sun Jan 10 12:01:54 2021
    On 09/01/2021 18:02, alister wrote:

    Which untested mRNA would that be, then?

    that final paragraph from Jan destroyed any credibility he may have had &
    is simply not worth continuing further


    I don't see why. The risk of Covid for people < 30 is surprising low.
    I've not seen any testing that shows it is safer from them, in general,
    to take a vaccine.

    mRNA, in particular, is new and hence probably not as well understood.

    The idea that this is a radical viewpoint is astonishing.

    The risk of Covid for older people appears to swamp vaccine risk, but
    that doesn't mean vaccine risk does not exist.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Pancho@3:770/3 to A. Dumas on Sun Jan 10 11:53:51 2021
    On 09/01/2021 14:19, A. Dumas wrote:
    Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Later ... we had the Chernobyl fallout, and where I worked the filters in
    the aircos were hot (radiation) and had to be properly disposed.
    That made me want to measure things, by that time I lost my nuculear fear btw,
    But nobody died, vegetables in your garden you were not recommended to eat.

    From "Int. J. Cancer: 119, 1224–1235 (2006)" via https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/44334601/Estimates_of_the_cancer_burden_in_Europe20160402-19341-ugwo1h.pdf

    "The risk projections suggest that by now Chernobyl may have caused about 1,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 4,000 cases of other cancers in Europe, representing about 0.01% of all incident cancers since the accident. Models pre- dict that by 2065 about 16,000 (95% UI 3,400–72,000) cases of thy- roid cancer and 25,000 (95% UI 11,000–59,000) cases of other can- cers may be expected due to radiation from the accident, whereas several hundred million cancer cases are expected from other causes. Although these
    estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty, they provide an
    indication of the order of magnitude of the possible impact of the
    Chernobyl accident. It is unlikely that the cancer bur- den from the
    largest radiological accident to date could be detected by monitoring national cancer statistics. Indeed, results of analyses of time trends in cancer incidence and mortality in Europe do not, at present, indicate any increase in cancer rates—other than of thyroid cancer in the most contaminated regions—that can be clearly attributed to radiation from the Chernobyl accident."


    There was a recent study in the UK suggesting air pollution (not
    nuclear) caused 36,000 deaths a year in just the UK.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Martin Gregorie@3:770/3 to Pancho on Sun Jan 10 13:00:05 2021
    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 11:53:51 +0000, Pancho wrote:

    There was a recent study in the UK suggesting air pollution (not
    nuclear) caused 36,000 deaths a year in just the UK.

    Just recently NOx air pollution was given as the sole cause of death for
    an asthmatic girl in London who lived close to the South Circular road,
    which carries a lot of HGV traffic. She died in 2013. NOx levels in
    London have risen since then.


    --
    --
    Martin | martin at
    Gregorie | gregorie dot org

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From David Higton@3:770/3 to Pancho on Sun Jan 10 15:46:02 2021
    In message <rteqbk$l4l$1@dont-email.me>
    Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:

    The risk of Covid for people < 30 is surprising low. I've not seen any testing that shows it is safer from them, in general, to take a vaccine.

    Not true. The risk of Covid for them is very low, yes; and the risk
    from taking the vaccine is even lower.

    In any case, it's an indefensibly selfish viewpoint. There is a much
    greater risk that they will contract Covid and pass it on to someone
    who has a much higher risk, maybe going on to die or to suffer long
    term damage from "long Covid".

    Remember, something like a third of people who have Covid are not
    even aware that they have it. Such people are highly dangerous,
    even lethal.

    David

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Pancho@3:770/3 to David Higton on Sun Jan 10 16:21:53 2021
    On 10/01/2021 15:46, David Higton wrote:
    In message <rteqbk$l4l$1@dont-email.me>
    Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:

    The risk of Covid for people < 30 is surprising low. I've not seen any
    testing that shows it is safer from them, in general, to take a vaccine.

    Not true. The risk of Covid for them is very low, yes; and the risk
    from taking the vaccine is even lower.


    Just how would we know that? The IFR for someone less than 30 is <
    0.01%. For a healthy person under 30, even less. You cannot rely on
    testing 20,000 people for a few months to be confident of that level of
    risk.

    Unless you have a cite, I'm going to assume you are just making it up. Something which has plagued medical treatments throughout the ages.


    In any case, it's an indefensibly selfish viewpoint.

    I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting perfectly
    healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested treatment just in
    order to protect others seems a tad selfish to me.

    But I don't think the young are being vaccinated yet. I guess they won't
    be vaccinated for a few months. By then the "test" sample size will be
    much greater, we will have a little more confidence in the vaccine. We
    still won't know about long term effects, obviously.

    There is a much
    greater risk that they will contract Covid and pass it on to someone
    who has a much higher risk, maybe going on to die or to suffer long
    term damage from "long Covid".


    Again, the vaccine effect on transmission is unclear from the testing I
    have seen.

    Remember, something like a third of people who have Covid are not
    even aware that they have it. Such people are highly dangerous,
    even lethal.


    The same applies to school kids > 11, I've not heard people suggesting vaccinating them. Herd immunity appears to be a pipe dream.

    Remember, in the UK, AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine approval is "for
    emergency supply". The EU has refused to approve it yet.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From alister@3:770/3 to Jan Panteltje on Sun Jan 10 16:54:52 2021
    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 08:46:56 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

    On a sunny day (Sat, 09 Jan 2021 18:02:18 GMT) it happened alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote in
    <KcmKH.291427$oT47.247116@fx20.ams4>:

    On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 14:29:32 +0000, TimS wrote:

    On 09 Jan 2021 at 13:51:10 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    In the F*ckupshima disaster exactly 1 person died of radiation IIRC.
    Hundreds die each year in coal mine accidents..

    I'm not even sure one died, although I've not been following those
    aspects that closely. Meanwhile 25,000 or so are missing/dead from the
    tsunami.

    Big farma sells and it sells untested mRNA shit that several very
    healthy people have already died from and is not tested over
    generations,

    Which untested mRNA would that be, then?

    that final paragraph from Jan destroyed any credibility he may have had
    &
    is simply not worth continuing further

    You act like an other clueless government paid brainwashed troll that
    tries to bend reality.

    You act like another idiot who believe every conspiracy he sees posted on
    the internet without giving it even the most basic critical analysis

    News flash

    The USA DID land on the moon
    Evis IS dead
    Flight is not a Bermuda Triangle mystery
    The world is not flat
    Vaccines work
    And there are no microchips in ANY of the Covid vaccines.

    There were approx 1500 deaths in the UK today due to covid.


    Hospitals are shutting down essential services because they do not have
    the capacity to cope because of knowledge-less people repeating the
    claims like "Its only the Flue" ignoring the fact that aysymptomatic
    people may spread it to those more susceptible & refuse to wear a mask or
    have one but refuse to wear it properly.





    --
    A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
    making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
    die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
    -- Max Planck

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jim H@3:770/3 to alister.ware@ntlworld.com on Sun Jan 10 18:12:39 2021
    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:54:52 GMT, in
    <wjGKH.480276$ijZ9.39088@fx05.ams4>, alister
    <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:

    --
    A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
    making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
    die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
    -- Max Planck


    This was more the case in the 60s when science played a significant
    role in education at the HS level due to our push to catch up withthe
    Russians in space. But for many years now science has been given short
    shrift and whacky ideas have gained a strong foothold. And it's not "politically correct" to tell the whackos they're dumber than a bag of
    hammers and crazier than a ferret on crack... which they are despite
    the attempt to use "political correctness" to shield them.
    --
    Jim H

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Dennis Lee Bieber@3:770/3 to All on Sun Jan 10 13:27:14 2021
    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 08:29:49 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> declaimed the following:


    Indeed, I know, but have you seen the SpaceX pictures of their big spacecraft traveling to mars
    with passengers in it using their laptops?

    Advertising agency stuff, with no accounting for reality?

    Laptops would not last very long...

    I'd suspect the relevant space agency would provide a list of pre-tested/approved laptops that don't out-gas, emit spurious RF, and have hardened processors and memories.

    They'd likely cost a small fortune, and have processors over a decade out-of-date for commercial gear. (The Boeing 737 series have flight
    management computers running Motorola 68040 chips... TODAY)

    OK he is selling, needs some salt....

    Suddenly I'm seeing Jubal Harshaw commenting on the taste of Valentine Michael Smith in the ending of Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land"


    --
    Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com http://wlfraed.microdiversity.freeddns.org/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From alister@3:770/3 to Jim H on Sun Jan 10 21:07:22 2021
    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:12:39 +0000, Jim H wrote:

    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:54:52 GMT, in
    <wjGKH.480276$ijZ9.39088@fx05.ams4>, alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:

    --
    A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
    making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
    die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
    -- Max Planck


    This was more the case in the 60s when science played a significant role
    in education at the HS level due to our push to catch up withthe
    Russians in space. But for many years now science has been given short
    shrift and whacky ideas have gained a strong foothold. And it's not "politically correct" to tell the whackos they're dumber than a bag of hammers and crazier than a ferret on crack... which they are despite the attempt to use "political correctness" to shield them.

    That was a randomly generated fortune cookie
    I have to say how pleasantly surprised I am to see how apt it turned out
    to be :-)



    --
    To program is to be.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From David Higton@3:770/3 to Pancho on Sun Jan 10 22:08:19 2021
    In message <rtf9j2$bb5$1@dont-email.me>
    Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:

    On 10/01/2021 15:46, David Higton wrote:
    In message <rteqbk$l4l$1@dont-email.me>
    Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:

    The risk of Covid for people < 30 is surprising low. I've not seen any testing that shows it is safer from them, in general, to take a
    vaccine.

    Not true. The risk of Covid for them is very low, yes; and the risk from taking the vaccine is even lower.


    Just how would we know that? The IFR for someone less than 30 is < 0.01%. For a healthy person under 30, even less. You cannot rely on testing
    20,000 people for a few months to be confident of that level of risk.

    Unless you have a cite, I'm going to assume you are just making it up. Something which has plagued medical treatments throughout the ages.

    Something like 45000 people tested the Oxford vaccine before it was
    approved for general use. No adverse effects were noted. A few days
    after the Pfizer vaccinations started, two people had temporary adverse
    effects - these were people who had a history of severe allergic
    reactions, so now the advice is not to vaccinate people with such
    histories.

    So far we've had about 1.5 million people vaccinated, and that's all
    the problems. Now do your arithmetic, and you'll see the risk of the
    vaccine is much less that 0.01%.

    In any case, it's an indefensibly selfish viewpoint.

    I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting perfectly
    healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested treatment just in
    order to protect others seems a tad selfish to me.

    You've just stated something that is not true. The vaccines (not a
    treatment, incidentally) have been tested just as well and as
    thoroughly as all previous vaccines. Don't let the short timescale
    fool you.

    Nearly 30 years ago, I joined an engineering project right at its
    start. This was the first project in the company to use "concurrent engineering" practices. Everything was planned to happen in parallel
    as far as possible, and without delay between stages when serial flow
    was inevitable. That's what has been done in the case of these vaccines
    - plus a great deal of pressure, in view of the 7-figure mortality.

    David

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From David Higton@3:770/3 to Pancho on Sun Jan 10 22:16:28 2021
    In message <rtf9j2$bb5$1@dont-email.me>
    Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:

    I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting perfectly
    healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested treatment just in
    order to protect others seems a tad selfish to me.

    I want you to cite evidence that the vaccines are poorly tested.

    I'm old, and I'll be at the vaccination centre as soon as I'm called,
    which I expect to be before the middle of February.

    David

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Richard Falken@1:123/115 to David Higton on Sun Jan 10 17:09:40 2021
    Re: Re: Will raspberry get ECC support?
    By: David Higton to Pancho on Sun Jan 10 2021 10:16 pm

    I want you to cite evidence that the vaccines are poorly tested.

    I'm old, and I'll be at the vaccination centre as soon as I'm called,
    which I expect to be before the middle of February.

    David

    If I may step in...

    last time I talked to a lab person with experience in the vaccine market, he told me that using a big number of subjects alone does not count as good testing.

    If I develop a med that causes you to grow a second head the 18th month after the first administration, the fact I tested the med in a million subjects won't help the least if the testing was conducted for less than 18 months.

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
    --- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
    * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Richard Falken on Mon Jan 11 04:17:01 2021
    On 10/01/2021 04:09, Richard Falken wrote:
    If I may step in...

    last time I talked to a lab person with experience in the vaccine market, he told me that using a big number of subjects alone does not count as good testing.

    If I develop a med that causes you to grow a second head the 18th month after the first administration, the fact I tested the med in a million subjects won't
    help the least if the testing was conducted for less than 18 months.
    Indeed, but what the testing has done is ascertain that the vaccines are
    (a) moderately effective and (b) not instantly lethal

    I was offered adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy "Radiotherapy will
    give a 15% increase in the risk of possible unrelated cancers after
    about 15 years"

    "What about the chemotherapy"
    "Well that's only been around for 12 years actually so we don't know"

    "But the 5 year survival rate since that chemo was introduced went from
    around 70% to 98%.."

    Life is risky


    --
    Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to alister on Mon Jan 11 04:19:06 2021
    On 10/01/2021 16:54, alister wrote:
    Hospitals are shutting down essential services because they do not have
    the capacity to cope because of knowledge-less people repeating the
    claims like "Its only the Flue"

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

    ignoring the fact that asymptomatic
    people may spread it to those more susceptible & refuse to wear a mask or have one but refuse to wear it properly.

    Personally I think masks do pretty much the square root of sweet fanny
    adams, but they make people feel safer, so fine


    --
    "Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
    higher education positively fortifies it."

    - Stephen Vizinczey

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to alister on Mon Jan 11 04:44:24 2021
    On 10/01/2021 21:07, alister wrote:
    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:12:39 +0000, Jim H wrote:

    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:54:52 GMT, in
    <wjGKH.480276$ijZ9.39088@fx05.ams4>, alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com>
    wrote:

    --
    A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
    making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
    die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
    -- Max Planck


    This was more the case in the 60s when science played a significant role
    in education at the HS level due to our push to catch up withthe
    Russians in space. But for many years now science has been given short
    shrift and whacky ideas have gained a strong foothold. And it's not
    "politically correct" to tell the whackos they're dumber than a bag of
    hammers and crazier than a ferret on crack... which they are despite the
    attempt to use "political correctness" to shield them.

    That was a randomly generated fortune cookie
    I have to say how pleasantly surprised I am to see how apt it turned out
    to be :-)

    Apt, but wrong.






    --
    Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
    twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
    on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
    projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

    Richard Lindzen

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Jim H on Mon Jan 11 04:43:50 2021
    On 10/01/2021 18:12, Jim H wrote:
    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:54:52 GMT, in
    <wjGKH.480276$ijZ9.39088@fx05.ams4>, alister
    <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:

    --
    A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
    making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
    die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
    -- Max Planck


    This was more the case in the 60s when science played a significant
    role in education at the HS level due to our push to catch up withthe Russians in space. But for many years now science has been given short
    shrift and whacky ideas have gained a strong foothold. And it's not "politically correct" to tell the whackos they're dumber than a bag of hammers and crazier than a ferret on crack... which they are despite
    the attempt to use "political correctness" to shield them.

    And of course there is no such thing as a 'scientific truth'.

    Einstein blew that to bits when he replaced Newton's invisible forces
    with bent space instead, because it worked *better* . That was really
    the end of classical science.

    Physicists started to realise that physics wasn't about uncovering
    truths so much as simply creating models that worked. Karl Popper
    elucidated the whole position of science rather well in that respect.
    And once you move science out of the realm of 'truth discovery' and into
    the realm of 'model invention', you run into the Problem of Induction.

    Unfortunately today most scientists are still stuck in a post
    enlightenment mind set, and think science 'reveals truths', and when
    confronted by Art Students who correctly state 'but you cant be sure'
    instead of playing to sciences strengths - namely that it *works* -
    they get all stupid and start wittering on about 'scientifically proven truths', which proves they know as little *about* science as Max Planck.
    And that you can be a scientist without ever understanding what it is in
    fact you are doing.

    And this is why science is in a state., because people *believe* in it
    without *understanding it* which is why people with letters after their
    names can spout appalling non scientific rubbish, and be believed
    because they are *'scientists'*. We are taught, or we learn to think, in
    one dimensional boolean logic: 'Newton was right, gravity exists, it's a scientific fact, in the real world'

    Except as Einstein showed, it wasn't, In fact *every one* of those
    statements is ultimately false.

    And that's the problem with externalising what are ultimately inductive propositions.

    It's very hard to move backwards from 'gravity is a fact in the world'
    to 'gravity is an approximate model, in your mind, that kinda works well
    enough to get you to the moon, but it may not be any more real than that'

    And when the Art Student gets hold of sociology, the whole thing becomes farcical. They stick an -ism on the back of anything and call it 'real objective fact'.

    Dude, it's all in your fucking *minds* - socialism, communism, fascism,
    sexism, racism, feminism....these aren't *real* - they are very
    approximate and very ill defined labels for patterns that may or may not
    have any meaning whatsoever. And whose chief *use* seems to be to stir
    up social conflict...

    ...


    --
    "Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
    higher education positively fortifies it."

    - Stephen Vizinczey

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jan Panteltje@3:770/3 to dave@davehigton.me.uk on Mon Jan 11 05:55:09 2021
    On a sunny day (Sun, 10 Jan 2021 22:08:19 GMT) it happened David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote in <9764d5ec58.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM>:

    Something like 45000 people tested the Oxford vaccine before it was
    approved for general use. No adverse effects were noted. A few days
    after the Pfizer vaccinations started, two people had temporary adverse >effects - these were people who had a history of severe allergic
    reactions, so now the advice is not to vaccinate people with such
    histories.

    So far we've had about 1.5 million people vaccinated, and that's all
    the problems. Now do your arithmetic, and you'll see the risk of the
    vaccine is much less that 0.01%.

    There is a big difference between the Oxford vaccine and the mRNA based ones. The method used by the Oxford vaccine has been proven over the years.
    How the Oxford vaccine works:
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine.html

    How mRNA based vaccines work:
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine.html

    The mRNA based ones have ones have hardly been tested and several people have mysteriously died after receiving it.
    https://www.rt.com/news/511524-portuguese-nurse-dies-pfizer-vaccine/
    Nurse died:
    https://www.businesstoday.in/current/world/healthcare-worker-dies-48-hours-after-getting-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine/story/427050.html
    Doctor died:
    https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/medical-examiners-investigate-death-of-u-s-doctor-who-got-covid-19-vaccine-1.5256887
    2 older people died after receiving mRNA vaccine:
    https://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-two-dead-in-norway-received-pfizer-s-coronavirus-vaccine-recently-2866294

    Reuters had a look:
    https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pfizer-health-concerns/fact-check-clarifying-claims-around-pfizer-vaccine-deaths-and-side-effects-idUSKBN28K2R6

    So, what is it?
    Given the small number of people in the Pfizer test and the outrageous conclusions Pfizer makes that it is 'safe'
    I ask you, 'Do you play the lotteries?"
    I sometimes do, and this week won 10 Euro back on my 17 Euro lot, I once did win a thousand..
    The changes of making a profit ?

    Count me out with mRNA experiments that have NOT been tested over generations, so if your kids grow horns or spikes Pfizer denies
    any responsibility:
    https://www.rt.com/news/511635-peru-pfizer-legal-immunity/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Joe@3:770/3 to David Higton on Mon Jan 11 09:48:33 2021
    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 22:16:28 GMT
    David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:

    In message <rtf9j2$bb5$1@dont-email.me>
    Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:

    I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting
    perfectly healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested
    treatment just in order to protect others seems a tad selfish to
    me.

    I want you to cite evidence that the vaccines are poorly tested.

    It's hanging on your wall, or if not then on your computer screen.

    It's called a calendar.

    Medications can reasonably be declared tested and safe after five to ten
    years. Whatever you choose to assert, the Covid medications (mostly not vaccines) have quite obviously not yet been shown to be safe over that
    kind of period.

    The *kind* of medication that some of the 'vaccines' are has not been
    shown to be safe over a reasonable period. It's pioneering stuff.

    Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'.

    --
    Joe

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Richard Kettlewell@3:770/3 to Joe on Mon Jan 11 11:14:11 2021
    Joe <joe@jretrading.com> writes:
    Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'.

    Not by modern standards it wasn’t. It was, famously, a trigger for
    tightening up the regulatory regimes.

    --
    https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From TimS@3:770/3 to Joe on Mon Jan 11 11:50:54 2021
    On 11 Jan 2021 at 09:48:33 GMT, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 22:16:28 GMT
    David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:

    In message <rtf9j2$bb5$1@dont-email.me>
    Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:

    I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting
    perfectly healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested
    treatment just in order to protect others seems a tad selfish to
    me.

    I want you to cite evidence that the vaccines are poorly tested.

    It's hanging on your wall, or if not then on your computer screen.

    It's called a calendar.

    Medications can reasonably be declared tested and safe after five to ten years. Whatever you choose to assert, the Covid medications (mostly not vaccines) have quite obviously not yet been shown to be safe over that
    kind of period.

    The *kind* of medication that some of the 'vaccines' are has not been
    shown to be safe over a reasonable period. It's pioneering stuff.

    Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'.

    OK well in that case, no one had better have it until it's not been used for
    10 years. We'll just leave it all on the shelf til, then, OK?

    In the case of Thalidomide, it was tested on at least two type of small mammal such as hampsters, rats, etc. It was safe in the case of one of them, and gave fetus deformities in the other. So, safe *at* *the* *time* is perhaps correct, but I suspect that wouldn't pass today.

    --
    Tim

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From TimS@3:770/3 to alister on Mon Jan 11 11:39:15 2021
    On 10 Jan 2021 at 21:07:22 GMT, alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:12:39 +0000, Jim H wrote:

    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:54:52 GMT, in
    <wjGKH.480276$ijZ9.39088@fx05.ams4>, alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com>
    wrote:

    --
    A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
    making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
    die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
    -- Max Planck

    This was more the case in the 60s when science played a significant role
    in education at the HS level due to our push to catch up withthe
    Russians in space. But for many years now science has been given short
    shrift and whacky ideas have gained a strong foothold. And it's not
    "politically correct" to tell the whackos they're dumber than a bag of
    hammers and crazier than a ferret on crack... which they are despite the
    attempt to use "political correctness" to shield them.

    That was a randomly generated fortune cookie
    I have to say how pleasantly surprised I am to see how apt it turned out
    to be :-)

    He meant hampsters, not hammers.

    --
    Tim

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Joe on Mon Jan 11 12:29:52 2021
    On 11/01/2021 09:48, Joe wrote:
    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 22:16:28 GMT
    David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:

    In message <rtf9j2$bb5$1@dont-email.me>
    Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:

    I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting
    perfectly healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested
    treatment just in order to protect others seems a tad selfish to
    me.

    I want you to cite evidence that the vaccines are poorly tested.

    It's hanging on your wall, or if not then on your computer screen.

    It's called a calendar.

    Medications can reasonably be declared tested and safe after five to ten years. Whatever you choose to assert, the Covid medications (mostly not vaccines) have quite obviously not yet been shown to be safe over that
    kind of period.

    The *kind* of medication that some of the 'vaccines' are has not been
    shown to be safe over a reasonable period. It's pioneering stuff.

    Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'.

    Life is risky.

    In the end cost benefit analysis is all we can use.

    Perhaps pregnant women should avoid it, but people are dying *already*.

    It was very unfortunate with thalidomide that the effects showed up in
    foetal poisoning only. The medical profession simply hadn't seen that
    one coming.

    Like aircraft designers in the 1950s didn't see metal fatigue coming, or
    in the noughties certain software failures...
    We do the best we can think of. Sometimes we haven't thought enough.

    Life is risky





    --
    Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
    guns, why should we let them have ideas?

    Josef Stalin

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Ahem A Rivet's Shot@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Mon Jan 11 12:46:18 2021
    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:29:52 +0000
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    Life is risky.

    In the end cost benefit analysis is all we can use.

    Perhaps pregnant women should avoid it, but people are dying *already*.

    Pregnant women and the under 15s are both groups advised to await further testing because those groups were not represented in the tests to
    date.

    Life is risky

    But we do our best to mitigate the bad ones.

    --
    Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
    The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
    You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to TimS on Mon Jan 11 12:30:46 2021
    On 11/01/2021 11:39, TimS wrote:
    On 10 Jan 2021 at 21:07:22 GMT, alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:12:39 +0000, Jim H wrote:

    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:54:52 GMT, in
    <wjGKH.480276$ijZ9.39088@fx05.ams4>, alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> >>> wrote:

    --
    A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
    making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually >>>> die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
    -- Max Planck

    This was more the case in the 60s when science played a significant role >>> in education at the HS level due to our push to catch up withthe
    Russians in space. But for many years now science has been given short >>> shrift and whacky ideas have gained a strong foothold. And it's not
    "politically correct" to tell the whackos they're dumber than a bag of >>> hammers and crazier than a ferret on crack... which they are despite the >>> attempt to use "political correctness" to shield them.

    That was a randomly generated fortune cookie
    I have to say how pleasantly surprised I am to see how apt it turned out
    to be :-)

    He meant hampsters, not hammers.

    I think you mean 'hampers'

    --
    In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
    gets full Marx.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Ahem A Rivet's Shot on Mon Jan 11 13:54:21 2021
    On 11/01/2021 12:46, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:29:52 +0000
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    Life is risky.

    In the end cost benefit analysis is all we can use.

    Perhaps pregnant women should avoid it, but people are dying *already*.

    Pregnant women and the under 15s are both groups advised to await further testing because those groups were not represented in the tests to date.

    Life is risky

    But we do our best to mitigate the bad ones.

    sometimes you have to play the percentages, despite what socialist
    politicians tell you about the completely safe-space kindergarten they
    will build for you if you give them all your money and let them have
    complete authority....

    ...bless!

    --
    "If you don’t read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
    news paper, you are mis-informed."

    Mark Twain

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From David Higton@3:770/3 to Jan Panteltje on Mon Jan 11 14:58:00 2021
    In message <rtgpc1$1932$1@gioia.aioe.org>
    Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Sun, 10 Jan 2021 22:08:19 GMT) it happened David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote in <9764d5ec58.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM>:

    Something like 45000 people tested the Oxford vaccine before it was approved for general use. No adverse effects were noted. A few days
    after the Pfizer vaccinations started, two people had temporary adverse effects - these were people who had a history of severe allergic
    reactions, so now the advice is not to vaccinate people with such histories.

    So far we've had about 1.5 million people vaccinated, and that's all the problems. Now do your arithmetic, and you'll see the risk of the vaccine is much less that 0.01%.

    There is a big difference between the Oxford vaccine and the mRNA based
    ones. The method used by the Oxford vaccine has been proven over the years. How the Oxford vaccine works: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine.html

    How mRNA based vaccines work: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine.html

    The mRNA based ones have ones have hardly been tested and several people
    have mysteriously died after receiving it. https://www.rt.com/news/511524-portuguese-nurse-dies-pfizer-vaccine/ Nurse died: https://www.businesstoday.in/current/world/healthcare-worker-dies-48-hours-after-getting-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine/story/427050.html
    Doctor died: https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/medical-examiners-investigate-death-of-u-s-doctor-who-got-covid-19-vaccine-1.5256887
    2 older people died after receiving mRNA vaccine: https://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-two-dead-in-norway-received-pfizer-s-coronavirus-vaccine-recently-2866294

    Reuters had a look: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pfizer-health-concerns/fact-check-clarifying-claims-around-pfizer-vaccine-deaths-and-side-effects-idUSKBN28K2R6

    So, what is it? Given the small number of people in the Pfizer test and
    the outrageous conclusions Pfizer makes that it is 'safe'

    Gosh, you do spout some rubbish.

    The stuff you cite shows clearly that being vaccinated is far safer than
    not being vaccinated. By a very long way.

    Being vaccinated against something doesn't magically prevent recipients
    from dying of all causes. Some people will die soon after vaccination,
    but it is extremely rare for the vaccination to cause death, or indeed
    any serious negative effect.

    Count me out with mRNA experiments that have NOT been tested over
    generations

    We can only speculate about how many lives were saved by Jenner's
    smallpox vaccine, the first vaccine ever, which had minimal testing.

    Like I said, I'll be there for my vaccination as soon as they call me.

    David

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to David Higton on Mon Jan 11 15:33:22 2021
    On 11/01/2021 14:58, David Higton wrote:
    Gosh, you do spout some rubbish.

    Indeed!

    The stuff you cite shows clearly that being vaccinated is far safer than
    not being vaccinated. By a very long way.

    But the snoflake worldview today is that everything must be '100% safe'
    or they whine and scream.


    Being vaccinated against something doesn't magically prevent recipients
    from dying of all causes. Some people will die soon after vaccination,
    but it is extremely rare for the vaccination to cause death, or indeed
    any serious negative effect.

    Count me out with mRNA experiments that have NOT been tested over
    generations
    We can only speculate about how many lives were saved by Jenner's
    smallpox vaccine, the first vaccine ever, which had minimal testing.

    Like I said, I'll be there for my vaccination as soon as they call me.

    Well I am in splendid isolation here, so I'll let others take their turn.


    David


    --
    "Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace, community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
    "What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

    "Jeremy Corbyn?"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From alister@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Mon Jan 11 17:34:02 2021
    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 04:17:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    On 10/01/2021 04:09, Richard Falken wrote:
    If I may step in...

    last time I talked to a lab person with experience in the vaccine
    market, he told me that using a big number of subjects alone does not
    count as good testing.

    If I develop a med that causes you to grow a second head the 18th month
    after the first administration, the fact I tested the med in a million
    subjects won't help the least if the testing was conducted for less
    than 18 months.
    Indeed, but what the testing has done is ascertain that the vaccines are
    (a) moderately effective and (b) not instantly lethal

    I was offered adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy "Radiotherapy will
    give a 15% increase in the risk of possible unrelated cancers after
    about 15 years"

    "What about the chemotherapy"
    "Well that's only been around for 12 years actually so we don't know"

    "But the 5 year survival rate since that chemo was introduced went from around 70% to 98%.."

    Life is risky

    I had both radio & chemo to reduce my tumour to an operable size
    I am still experiencing some of the side effects, minor nerve damage in
    fingers & toes but without it my days would have been numbered.

    Histology after the op suggest that lower doses may have been sufficient
    but I know where my preferences lie.




    --
    I Know A Joke!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Charlie Gibbs@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Mon Jan 11 18:23:02 2021
    On 2021-01-11, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    Dude, it's all in your fucking *minds* - socialism, communism, fascism, sexism, racism, feminism....these aren't *real* - they are very
    approximate and very ill defined labels for patterns that may or may not
    have any meaning whatsoever. And whose chief *use* seems to be to stir
    up social conflict...

    Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist,
    fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic
    criteria. The human race divides politically into those who
    want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
    The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the
    greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly
    curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they
    are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
    -- Robert A. Heinlein: The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

    --
    /~\ Charlie Gibbs | "Some of you may die,
    \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | but it's a sacrifice
    X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | I'm willing to make."
    / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Deloptes@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Mon Jan 11 20:50:02 2021
    The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    And of course there is no such thing as a 'scientific truth'.

    Einstein blew that to bits when he replaced Newton's invisible forces
    with bent space instead, because it worked *better* . That was really
    the end of classical science.

    Physicists started to realise that physics wasn't about uncovering
    truths so much as simply creating models that worked. Karl Popper
    elucidated the whole position of science rather well in that respect.
    And once you move science out of the realm of 'truth discovery' and into
    the realm of 'model invention', you run into the Problem of Induction.

    Unfortunately today most scientists are still stuck in a post
    enlightenment mind set, and think science 'reveals truths', and when confronted by Art Students who correctly state 'but you cant be sure'
    instead of playing to sciences strengths - namely that it *works* -
    they get all stupid and start wittering on about 'scientifically proven truths', which proves they know as little *about* science as Max Planck.
    And that you can be a scientist without ever understanding what it is in
    fact you are doing.

    And this is why science is in a state., because people *believe* in it without *understanding it* which is why people with letters after their
    names can spout appalling non scientific rubbish, and be believed
    because they are *'scientists'*. We are taught, or we learn to think, in
    one dimensional boolean logic: 'Newton was right, gravity exists, it's a scientific fact, in the real world'

    Except as Einstein showed, it wasn't, In fact *every one* of those
    statements is ultimately false.

    And that's the problem with externalising what are ultimately inductive propositions.

    It's very hard to move backwards from 'gravity is a fact in the world'
    to 'gravity is an approximate model, in your mind, that kinda works well enough to get you to the moon, but it may not be any more real than that'

    And when the Art Student gets hold of sociology, the whole thing becomes farcical.  They stick an -ism on the back of anything and call it 'real objective fact'.

    Dude, it's all in your fucking *minds* - socialism, communism, fascism, sexism, racism, feminism....these aren't *real* -  they are very
    approximate and very ill defined labels for patterns that may or may not
    have any meaning whatsoever. And whose chief *use* seems to be to stir
    up social conflict...


    I will print this and hang it on the wall as it summarizes the problem perfectly. This is why after I got my degree I found out the plumber and
    the mechanic from the nearest car shops deserve more respect than people
    with whatever title infront or after the name.

    But please do not forget the truth seekers. After this current middle age is over they will be the new Newtons or Einsteins.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Ahem A Rivet's Shot@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Mon Jan 11 20:56:41 2021
    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 04:43:50 +0000
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    Physicists started to realise that physics wasn't about uncovering
    truths so much as simply creating models that worked. Karl Popper
    elucidated the whole position of science rather well in that respect.
    And once you move science out of the realm of 'truth discovery' and into
    the realm of 'model invention', you run into the Problem of Induction.

    I've always thought of science as a mechanism for pruning out
    guesses that don't work rather than a mechanism for finding the truth.

    --
    Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
    The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
    You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Martin Gregorie@3:770/3 to Ahem A Rivet's Shot on Mon Jan 11 21:17:33 2021
    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 20:56:41 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 04:43:50 +0000 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    Physicists started to realise that physics wasn't about uncovering
    truths so much as simply creating models that worked. Karl Popper
    elucidated the whole position of science rather well in that respect.
    And once you move science out of the realm of 'truth discovery' and
    into the realm of 'model invention', you run into the Problem of
    Induction.

    I've always thought of science as a mechanism for pruning out
    guesses that don't work rather than a mechanism for finding the truth.

    Yes, agreed, but there's another essential ingredient: critical thinking.
    The scientific method doesn't work if the would-be scientist doesn't
    understand or use it.


    --
    --
    Martin | martin at
    Gregorie | gregorie dot org

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Charlie Gibbs@3:770/3 to Martin Gregorie on Mon Jan 11 22:04:51 2021
    On 2021-01-11, Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:

    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 20:56:41 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 04:43:50 +0000 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    Physicists started to realise that physics wasn't about uncovering
    truths so much as simply creating models that worked. Karl Popper
    elucidated the whole position of science rather well in that respect.
    And once you move science out of the realm of 'truth discovery' and
    into the realm of 'model invention', you run into the Problem of
    Induction.

    I've always thought of science as a mechanism for pruning out
    guesses that don't work rather than a mechanism for finding the truth.

    Hmm, interesting... That does fit with the idea of coming arbitrarily
    close to the truth without actually getting there.

    Yes, agreed, but there's another essential ingredient: critical thinking.
    The scientific method doesn't work if the would-be scientist doesn't understand or use it.

    That nicely takes care of creation science...

    --
    /~\ Charlie Gibbs | "Some of you may die,
    \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | but it's a sacrifice
    X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | I'm willing to make."
    / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Pancho@3:770/3 to David Higton on Mon Jan 11 23:32:12 2021
    On 10/01/2021 22:08, David Higton wrote:
    In message <rtf9j2$bb5$1@dont-email.me>
    Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:

    On 10/01/2021 15:46, David Higton wrote:
    In message <rteqbk$l4l$1@dont-email.me>
    Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:

    The risk of Covid for people < 30 is surprising low. I've not seen any >>>> testing that shows it is safer from them, in general, to take a
    vaccine.

    Not true. The risk of Covid for them is very low, yes; and the risk from >>> taking the vaccine is even lower.


    Just how would we know that? The IFR for someone less than 30 is < 0.01%. >> For a healthy person under 30, even less. You cannot rely on testing
    20,000 people for a few months to be confident of that level of risk.

    Unless you have a cite, I'm going to assume you are just making it up.
    Something which has plagued medical treatments throughout the ages.

    Something like 45000 people tested the Oxford vaccine before it was
    approved for general use.

    No half of them were a control group, i.e. not given the vaccine. Hence
    my 20,000 approximation.

    [snip]

    So far we've had about 1.5 million people vaccinated, and that's all
    the problems. Now do your arithmetic, and you'll see the risk of the
    vaccine is much less that 0.01%.


    The AstraZeneca vaccine has been out for a week. Even with the Pfizer
    one I would not expect problems to be reported promptly. Finally you are
    still ignoring the time aspect, we do not know long term effects.

    You cannot just wave your hands in the air and say it is safe.

    In any case, it's an indefensibly selfish viewpoint.

    I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting perfectly
    healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested treatment just in
    order to protect others seems a tad selfish to me.

    You've just stated something that is not true. The vaccines (not a treatment, incidentally) have been tested just as well and as
    thoroughly as all previous vaccines. Don't let the short timescale
    fool you.

    This is not the case, the AstraZeneca vaccine testing was problematic in
    that they messed up a lot of dosages. With a normal test they would
    almost certainly have redone the messed up tests.

    And finally you are again ignoring the fact that problems may not
    manifest immediately and so a short time span is clearly less than
    ideal. It is true that problems with vaccines tend to show up early, but
    we haven't developed enough vaccines to extrapolate this with confidence
    levels of risk < 0.01%.

    So yes if you are old, with a clearly high risk from Covid and limited
    years left anyway, taking the vaccine is a good bet.

    What is not a good bet is immediately giving it to billions of people
    under 30. Which would be necessary to achieve herd immunity, assuming
    the vaccine does significantly prevent transmission, which we aren't
    sure of.

    [snip]

    That's what has been done in the case of these vaccines
    - plus a great deal of pressure, in view of the 7-figure mortality.


    You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of giving
    the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best
    way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been
    rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view.
    However, I would not believe medical professionals if they claim this
    vaccine is as safe as other vaccines which have been tested over decades.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Martin Gregorie@3:770/3 to Pancho on Mon Jan 11 23:48:44 2021
    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:32:12 +0000, Pancho wrote:

    You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of giving
    the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best
    way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been
    rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view.

    Judging by progress so far, today's prediction that all UK over-80s will
    be vaccinated by mid-Feb is optimistic in the extreme. IOW I'm not
    holding my breath for the UK to complete the first round by autumn, let
    alone getting the second shot (now to be given 3 months later rather then
    3 weeks!) completed before next Christmas.

    However, I would not believe medical professionals if they claim this
    vaccine is as safe as other vaccines which have been tested over
    decades.

    Here's a conundrum: should Our Lords And Masters get vaccinated first (to
    show confidence to the voters) or be last (on the 'captain is always last
    off a sinking ship' principle?

    What do YOU think they should do?


    --
    --
    Martin | martin at
    Gregorie | gregorie dot org

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Pancho@3:770/3 to Martin Gregorie on Tue Jan 12 00:02:07 2021
    On 11/01/2021 23:48, Martin Gregorie wrote:
    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:32:12 +0000, Pancho wrote:

    You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of giving
    the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best
    way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been
    rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view.

    Judging by progress so far, today's prediction that all UK over-80s will
    be vaccinated by mid-Feb is optimistic in the extreme. IOW I'm not
    holding my breath for the UK to complete the first round by autumn, let
    alone getting the second shot (now to be given 3 months later rather then
    3 weeks!) completed before next Christmas.


    Don't see why not. The over 80s I know have be done, one twice (Pfizer),
    one once (she tells me AstraZeneca but I will need to read the letter to
    be sure).

    However, I would not believe medical professionals if they claim this
    vaccine is as safe as other vaccines which have been tested over
    decades.

    Here's a conundrum: should Our Lords And Masters get vaccinated first (to show confidence to the voters) or be last (on the 'captain is always last
    off a sinking ship' principle?

    What do YOU think they should do?


    Get vaccinated first, like Her Maj (for UK readers + colonials)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Martin Gregorie@3:770/3 to Pancho on Tue Jan 12 01:48:06 2021
    On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:02:07 +0000, Pancho wrote:

    On 11/01/2021 23:48, Martin Gregorie wrote:
    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:32:12 +0000, Pancho wrote:

    You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of giving
    the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best
    way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been
    rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view.

    Judging by progress so far, today's prediction that all UK over-80s
    will be vaccinated by mid-Feb is optimistic in the extreme. IOW I'm not
    holding my breath for the UK to complete the first round by autumn, let
    alone getting the second shot (now to be given 3 months later rather
    then 3 weeks!) completed before next Christmas.


    Don't see why not. The over 80s I know have be done, one twice (Pfizer),
    one once (she tells me AstraZeneca but I will need to read the letter to
    be sure).

    However, I would not believe medical professionals if they claim this
    vaccine is as safe as other vaccines which have been tested over
    decades.

    Here's a conundrum: should Our Lords And Masters get vaccinated first
    (to show confidence to the voters) or be last (on the 'captain is
    always last off a sinking ship' principle?

    What do YOU think they should do?


    Get vaccinated first, like Her Maj (for UK readers + colonials)

    Hmmm. I'd leave the Cabinet until last along with those in NHS central
    office because that might concentrate their tiny minds on doing a better
    job than they have so far. But I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they've
    all secretly crept onto the front of the queue because that would fit
    nicely with the way that both Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson have
    seen fit to interpret the COVID-related movement restrictions.


    --
    --
    Martin | martin at
    Gregorie | gregorie dot org

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Charlie Gibbs on Tue Jan 12 04:50:12 2021
    On 11/01/2021 22:04, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
    On 2021-01-11, Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:

    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 20:56:41 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 04:43:50 +0000 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    Physicists started to realise that physics wasn't about uncovering
    truths so much as simply creating models that worked. Karl Popper
    elucidated the whole position of science rather well in that respect.
    And once you move science out of the realm of 'truth discovery' and
    into the realm of 'model invention', you run into the Problem of
    Induction.

    I've always thought of science as a mechanism for pruning out
    guesses that don't work rather than a mechanism for finding the truth.

    Hmm, interesting... That does fit with the idea of coming arbitrarily
    close to the truth without actually getting there.

    Yes, agreed, but there's another essential ingredient: critical thinking.
    The scientific method doesn't work if the would-be scientist doesn't
    understand or use it.

    That nicely takes care of creation science...

    Well no.

    In the end conventional science versus creation science is about what
    you find the most inconceivable - a Big Bang N billion years ago in
    which a broken symmetry started time in the exact way it appears, or a
    supernal Being who dreamed it all up a few thousand years ago and faked
    it to *look like* it was N billion years old. Or whatever the current
    figure is.

    And those are not the only narratives that exist. And they are in the
    end metaphysical. They can't be proved to be correct, only more or less
    useful, in any given context.

    Its not turtles all the way down, it's *models*.


    --
    “Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
    other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

    - John K Galbraith

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jan Panteltje@3:770/3 to Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com on Tue Jan 12 07:41:00 2021
    On a sunny day (Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:32:12 +0000) it happened Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote in <rtin5s$cv1$1@dont-email.me>:

    You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of giving
    the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best
    way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been
    rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view.
    However, I would not believe medical professionals if they claim this
    vaccine is as safe as other vaccines which have been tested over decades.

    Well that all depends does it not?
    https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/24-dead-and-137-infected-at-ny-nursing-home-after-experimental-covid-injections/

    Pfizer shit

    Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?
    Was that not also in Hitler's mind?
    Oh no he sent all kids to war too.

    This is also good to know about keeping people in lockdown:
    https://www.rt.com/news/512137-lockdown-ineffective-coronavirus-restrictions/

    I think it is very obvious when you have like 3% of people test positive that lockdowns make no sense.
    I did read the > 3% for London here:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-55588163

    You will bump into - or meet one covid case for every 30 people you encounter.

    Most people most likely have antibodies so it is all panic making and a control trip
    and yes I am 74 years old and not scared.

    I think I encountered covid about half a year ago when I got some parcel from China, bought
    something on ebay, opened it, something got into my lungs, couched a couple of times
    and that was it.
    Never felt anything go so deep in my lungs as that time.
    And I did not have the flue ever, no shots against it either.
    So nobody is exactly the same -- at DNA level, and experimenting with mRNA on EVERYBODY will kill many.
    Maybe even people (this is what I think) that _do_ have the immune response will get an over-reaction and die
    so Pfizer shit is helping the virus at least for some part of the populations.

    Many years from now, if hummingbeans are still around, a paper will be written how stupid the 2020 generation was
    and that it was BAD science and I will not get into my theory about multiple big bangs here ;-)
    but I do intent do put Ubuntu on my Pi4b 8GB as raspi OS has by now convinced me it is let's say crap^H^H^H^H incomplete.

    Back on topic!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jan Panteltje@3:770/3 to Gregorie on Tue Jan 12 07:41:53 2021
    On a sunny day (Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:48:44 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote in <rtio4s$2je$5@dont-email.me>:

    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:32:12 +0000, Pancho wrote:

    You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of giving
    the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best
    way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been
    rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view.

    Judging by progress so far, today's prediction that all UK over-80s will
    be vaccinated by mid-Feb is optimistic in the extreme. IOW I'm not
    holding my breath for the UK to complete the first round by autumn, let
    alone getting the second shot (now to be given 3 months later rather then
    3 weeks!) completed before next Christmas.

    However, I would not believe medical professionals if they claim this
    vaccine is as safe as other vaccines which have been tested over
    decades.

    Here's a conundrum: should Our Lords And Masters get vaccinated first (to >show confidence to the voters) or be last (on the 'captain is always last
    off a sinking ship' principle?

    What do YOU think they should do?

    gunpowder treason and plot?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Pancho@3:770/3 to Jan Panteltje on Tue Jan 12 09:15:54 2021
    On 12/01/2021 07:41, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:32:12 +0000) it happened Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote in <rtin5s$cv1$1@dont-email.me>:

    You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of giving
    the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best
    way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been
    rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view.
    However, I would not believe medical professionals if they claim this
    vaccine is as safe as other vaccines which have been tested over decades.

    Well that all depends does it not?
    https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/24-dead-and-137-infected-at-ny-nursing-home-after-experimental-covid-injections/


    The US has vaccinated millions, it is likely that negative events will
    occur, for instance applying the vaccine during a not yet recognised
    infection outbreak at a care home.

    Without investigation it is very difficult to untangle, coincidence from adverse reaction. It is dangerous to jump to conclusions either that the
    mass rollout has occurred without adverse reactions and is hence safe or
    that adverse reactions are due to the vaccine.

    The sad fact is we just don't know.


    Pfizer shit

    Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?
    Was that not also in Hitler's mind?
    Oh no he sent all kids to war too.

    This is also good to know about keeping people in lockdown:
    https://www.rt.com/news/512137-lockdown-ineffective-coronavirus-restrictions/

    I think it is very obvious when you have like 3% of people test positive that lockdowns make no sense.
    I did read the > 3% for London here:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-55588163


    It's currently reckoned to be about 5% where I live, people are ignoring
    the lockdown much more than they did in March/April. AIUI, the
    projections (SIR, SEIR) suggested a natural (no lockdown) concurrent
    peak infection rate much, much higher something like 30-50% (I haven't
    checked figures). This would swamp hospitals.


    You will bump into - or meet one covid case for every 30 people you encounter.

    Most people most likely have antibodies so it is all panic making and a control trip
    and yes I am 74 years old and not scared.

    I think I encountered covid about half a year ago when I got some parcel from China, bought
    something on ebay, opened it, something got into my lungs, couched a couple of times
    and that was it.
    Never felt anything go so deep in my lungs as that time.
    And I did not have the flue ever, no shots against it either.

    OK, you are starting to sound a little unreliable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Axel Berger@3:770/3 to Martin Gregorie on Tue Jan 12 09:42:19 2021
    Martin Gregorie wrote:
    What do YOU think they should do?

    Simple: While there is a scramble for the vaccine, hold back. When the
    skeptics and doubters prevail, go first, like Johnson and Biden.


    --
    /\ No | Dipl.-Ing. F. Axel Berger Tel: +49/ 221/ 7771 8067
    \ / HTML | Roald-Amundsen-Strae 2a Fax: +49/ 221/ 7771 8069
    X in | D-50829 Kln-Ossendorf http://berger-odenthal.de
    / \ Mail | -- No unannounced, large, binary attachments, please! --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Richard Falken@1:123/115 to Martin Gregorie on Tue Jan 12 05:14:06 2021
    Re: Re: Will raspberry get ECC support?
    By: Martin Gregorie to Pancho on Mon Jan 11 2021 11:48 pm

    Here's a conundrum: should Our Lords And Masters get vaccinated first (to show confidence to the voters) or be last (on the 'captain is always last off a sinking ship' principle?

    What do YOU think they should do?

    He who has confidence in a propcedure must lead by example and follow through himself.

    Otherwise you get doubtful people. "If the vaccine is so safe, why hasn't the Pfizer CEO taken it yet?"

    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
    --- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
    * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)
  • From Joe@3:770/3 to Ahem A Rivet's Shot on Tue Jan 12 10:46:15 2021
    On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:26:52 +0000
    Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

    On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:41:00 GMT
    Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    This is also good to know about keeping people in lockdown:
    https://www.rt.com/news/512137-lockdown-ineffective-coronavirus-restrictions/

    I think it is very obvious when you have like 3% of people test
    positive that lockdowns make no sense.

    Strange how well lockdown worked the first time round when
    people took it seriously.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/04/coronavirus-infections-england-wales-hit-peak-days-lockdown/

    "Coronavirus infections in England and Wales peaked several days before
    the lockdown came in, a new study suggests, indicating that the
    draconian restrictions were not responsible for the decline in deaths
    and cases."

    --
    Joe

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Ahem A Rivet's Shot@3:770/3 to Jan Panteltje on Tue Jan 12 10:26:52 2021
    On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:41:00 GMT
    Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    This is also good to know about keeping people in lockdown:
    https://www.rt.com/news/512137-lockdown-ineffective-coronavirus-restrictions/

    I think it is very obvious when you have like 3% of people test positive
    that lockdowns make no sense.

    Strange how well lockdown worked the first time round when people
    took it seriously. Here we had the case rate down to less than one a day
    with an estimated community incidence of one in a million. Then some idiot decided that was good enough and dropped the restrictions.

    --
    Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
    The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
    You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Martin Gregorie@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Tue Jan 12 11:56:12 2021
    On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 11:25:24 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    On 12/01/2021 11:21, Martin Gregorie wrote:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/04/coronavirus-infections-
    england-wales-hit-peak-days-lockdown/


    "Full lockdown in the UK did not come into effect until March 25.
    However, in the week before, social distancing measures were already in
    place and many people had begun working from home. Large public
    gatherings had stopped and bars, restaurants and theatres were starting
    to close. "

    Thats only what the newspaper says - where are the actual numbers?
    There's so much waffle coming from innumerate pricks^W^Wofficial
    spokesmen that its impossible to tell whats actually happening with the vaccination rollout.



    --
    --
    Martin | martin at
    Gregorie | gregorie dot org

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Martin Gregorie on Tue Jan 12 11:25:24 2021
    On 12/01/2021 11:21, Martin Gregorie wrote:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/04/coronavirus-infections-
    england-wales-hit-peak-days-lockdown/


    "Full lockdown in the UK did not come into effect until March 25.
    However, in the week before, social distancing measures were already in
    place and many people had begun working from home. Large public
    gatherings had stopped and bars, restaurants and theatres were starting
    to close. "

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Martin Gregorie@3:770/3 to Joe on Tue Jan 12 11:21:55 2021
    On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:46:15 +0000, Joe wrote:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/04/coronavirus-infections-
    england-wales-hit-peak-days-lockdown/

    "Coronavirus infections in England and Wales peaked several days before
    the lockdown came in, a new study suggests, indicating that the
    draconian restrictions were not responsible for the decline in deaths
    and cases."

    Kindly provide a citation for the original, peer-reviewed paper, not what
    the Torygraph thinks it says.


    --
    --
    Martin | martin at
    Gregorie | gregorie dot org

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Martin Gregorie on Tue Jan 12 12:02:17 2021
    On 12/01/2021 11:56, Martin Gregorie wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 11:25:24 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    On 12/01/2021 11:21, Martin Gregorie wrote:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/04/coronavirus-infections-
    england-wales-hit-peak-days-lockdown/


    "Full lockdown in the UK did not come into effect until March 25.
    However, in the week before, social distancing measures were already in
    place and many people had begun working from home. Large public
    gatherings had stopped and bars, restaurants and theatres were starting
    to close. "

    Thats only what the newspaper says - where are the actual numbers?
    There's so much waffle coming from innumerate pricks^W^Wofficial
    spokesmen that its impossible to tell whats actually happening with the vaccination rollout.

    Indeed. Data, models, prognostications. All jumbled up.
    All meaningless. You know and I know that either its all a tissue of
    lies or the government is simply applying the lockdown brake every time
    the death rate meter goes over a politically unacceptable '70'...





    --
    "First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your oppressors."
    - George Orwell

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From TimS@3:770/3 to All on Tue Jan 12 19:00:21 2021
    On 12 Jan 2021 at 04:50:12 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 11/01/2021 22:04, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

    That nicely takes care of creation science...

    Well no.

    In the end conventional science versus creation science is about what
    you find the most inconceivable - a Big Bang N billion years ago in
    which a broken symmetry started time in the exact way it appears, or a supernal Being who dreamed it all up a few thousand years ago and faked
    it to *look like* it was N billion years old. Or whatever the current
    figure is.

    If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in 4004 BC, then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 seconds ago, no I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.

    And so on.

    But then such people would probably be unable to answer *why* the Supremem Being bothered to fake it up to look like billyuns.

    --
    Tim

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From TimS@3:770/3 to All on Tue Jan 12 18:55:40 2021
    On 12 Jan 2021 at 00:02:07 GMT, Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com>
    wrote:

    On 11/01/2021 23:48, Martin Gregorie wrote:
    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:32:12 +0000, Pancho wrote:

    You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of giving
    the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best
    way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been
    rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view.

    Judging by progress so far, today's prediction that all UK over-80s will
    be vaccinated by mid-Feb is optimistic in the extreme. IOW I'm not
    holding my breath for the UK to complete the first round by autumn, let
    alone getting the second shot (now to be given 3 months later rather then >> 3 weeks!) completed before next Christmas.


    Don't see why not. The over 80s I know have be done, one twice (Pfizer),
    one once (she tells me AstraZeneca but I will need to read the letter to
    be sure).

    Seems my brother (aged 84) has had both jabs.

    --
    Tim

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From TimS@3:770/3 to All on Tue Jan 12 19:01:47 2021
    On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?

    The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways" or "lose" as "loose".

    --
    Tim

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Charlie Gibbs@3:770/3 to TimS on Tue Jan 12 19:52:09 2021
    On 2021-01-12, TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

    On 12 Jan 2021 at 04:50:12 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 11/01/2021 22:04, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

    That nicely takes care of creation science...

    Well no.

    In the end conventional science versus creation science is about what
    you find the most inconceivable - a Big Bang N billion years ago in
    which a broken symmetry started time in the exact way it appears, or a
    supernal Being who dreamed it all up a few thousand years ago and faked
    it to *look like* it was N billion years old. Or whatever the current
    figure is.

    If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in 4004 BC,
    then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 seconds ago, no
    I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.

    And so on.

    But then such people would probably be unable to answer *why* the Supremem Being bothered to fake it up to look like billyuns.

    They've probably been following too many politicians.

    --
    /~\ Charlie Gibbs | "Some of you may die,
    \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | but it's a sacrifice
    X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | I'm willing to make."
    / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Ahem A Rivet's Shot@3:770/3 to TimS on Tue Jan 12 19:57:21 2021
    On 12 Jan 2021 19:00:21 GMT
    TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

    If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in
    4004 BC, then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 seconds ago, no I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.

    Why go for such extravagance ? All that's required is now.

    --
    Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
    The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
    You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Charlie Gibbs@3:770/3 to TimS on Tue Jan 12 19:52:09 2021
    On 2021-01-12, TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

    On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?

    The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways" or "lose"
    as "loose".

    Ok, your rite. Ekcetera.

    --
    /~\ Charlie Gibbs | "Some of you may die,
    \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | but it's a sacrifice
    X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | I'm willing to make."
    / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jim H@3:770/3 to TimS on Tue Jan 12 20:36:44 2021
    On 11 Jan 2021 11:39:15 GMT, in <i62rn3F5jg5U10@mid.individual.net>,
    TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

    On 10 Jan 2021 at 21:07:22 GMT, alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:12:39 +0000, Jim H wrote:

    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:54:52 GMT, in
    <wjGKH.480276$ijZ9.39088@fx05.ams4>, alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> >>> wrote:

    --
    A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
    making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually >>>> die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
    -- Max Planck

    This was more the case in the 60s when science played a significant role >>> in education at the HS level due to our push to catch up withthe
    Russians in space. But for many years now science has been given short
    shrift and whacky ideas have gained a strong foothold. And it's not
    "politically correct" to tell the whackos they're dumber than a bag of
    hammers and crazier than a ferret on crack... which they are despite the >>> attempt to use "political correctness" to shield them.

    That was a randomly generated fortune cookie
    I have to say how pleasantly surprised I am to see how apt it turned out
    to be :-)

    He meant hampsters, not hammers.

    No, I meant hammers. Dumber than hamsters still implies more
    intelligence than many of the whackos possess.
    --
    Jim H

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jim H@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Tue Jan 12 20:45:59 2021
    On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 04:50:12 +0000, in <rtj9q5$jkr$1@dont-email.me>,
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    In the end conventional science versus creation science is about what
    you find the most inconceivable - a Big Bang N billion years ago in
    which a broken symmetry started time in the exact way it appears, or a >supernal Being who dreamed it all up a few thousand years ago and faked
    it to *look like* it was N billion years old. Or whatever the current
    figure is.

    And those are not the only narratives that exist. And they are in the
    end metaphysical. They can't be proved to be correct, only more or less >useful, in any given context.

    Its not turtles all the way down, it's *models*.


    Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief"
    to hang its hat on.
    --
    Jim H

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jim H@3:770/3 to joe@jretrading.com on Tue Jan 12 20:57:47 2021
    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 09:48:33 +0000, in <20210111094833.1c19c1b2@jresid.jretrading.com>, Joe
    <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 22:16:28 GMT
    David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:

    In message <rtf9j2$bb5$1@dont-email.me>
    Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:

    I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting
    perfectly healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested
    treatment just in order to protect others seems a tad selfish to
    me.

    I want you to cite evidence that the vaccines are poorly tested.

    It's hanging on your wall, or if not then on your computer screen.

    It's called a calendar.

    Medications can reasonably be declared tested and safe after five to ten >years. Whatever you choose to assert, the Covid medications (mostly not >vaccines) have quite obviously not yet been shown to be safe over that
    kind of period.

    The *kind* of medication that some of the 'vaccines' are has not been
    shown to be safe over a reasonable period. It's pioneering stuff.

    Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'.

    So Canada and some European countries thought, but it was NOT approved
    by the FDA. The battle to reject Thalidomide along with the later
    birth of children with severe birth defects lead to vastly tighter FDA standards for approval of all drugs.
    --
    Jim H

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jim H@3:770/3 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Tue Jan 12 21:00:17 2021
    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 11:14:11 +0000, in
    <87czyb914s.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    Joe <joe@jretrading.com> writes:
    Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'.

    Not by modern standards it wasnt. It was, famously, a trigger for
    tightening up the regulatory regimes.

    The refusal of the FDA to approve the drug suggests it didn't meet the standards of the time... which have been tightened considerably since.
    --
    Jim H

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jim H@3:770/3 to TimS on Tue Jan 12 21:08:19 2021
    On 11 Jan 2021 11:50:54 GMT, in <i62scuF5jg5U11@mid.individual.net>,
    TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

    OK well in that case, no one had better have it until it's not been used for >10 years. We'll just leave it all on the shelf til, then, OK?

    That reminds me of a supposed (doubtful) law that says, "When two
    trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a
    full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone."

    If something can't be used until it's been in safe use for 10 years,
    it will never be used.
    --
    Jim H

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From TimS@3:770/3 to All on Tue Jan 12 20:57:04 2021
    On 12 Jan 2021 at 19:57:21 GMT, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
    wrote:

    On 12 Jan 2021 19:00:21 GMT
    TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

    If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in
    4004 BC, then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2
    seconds ago, no I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.

    Why go for such extravagance ? All that's required is now.

    That's equally valid, yes.

    --
    Tim

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jim H@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Tue Jan 12 21:26:23 2021
    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:29:52 +0000, in <rthgc1$jqo$1@dont-email.me>,
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    Life is risky.

    In the end cost benefit analysis is all we can use.

    Perhaps pregnant women should avoid it, but people are dying *already*.

    It was very unfortunate with thalidomide that the effects showed up in
    foetal poisoning only. The medical profession simply hadn't seen that
    one coming.

    Yes they did! The problem is that the medical professionals involved
    in the testing didn't have to report all the side effects at the
    time... and they didn't. Even before any tests in humans the
    teratogenic effects of Thalidomide were seen in animal testing. But
    only in some species and not others.

    Would you want your wife or daughter of child bearing age, with a
    likelyhood of becoming pregnant, to use a drug that caused serious
    fetal deformity in say rats, but not hamsters? Does it make a
    difference in your answer that the problem was with taking the drug
    during the first 3-4 weeks of pregnancy when few know for sure that
    they're pregnant and so won't know to stop taking it in time to
    prevent defects?

    Life is risky, but it doesn't need to be that much of a risk for yet
    another drug that did the same thing as many other drugs available at
    the time. Not to mention that use to prevent morning sickness was an
    "off label" use.
    --
    Jim H

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jim H@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Tue Jan 12 21:27:44 2021
    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 13:54:21 +0000, in <rthlad$uq0$3@dont-email.me>,
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    sometimes you have to play the percentages, despite what socialist >politicians tell you about the completely safe-space kindergarten they
    will build for you if you give them all your money and let them have
    complete authority....

    ...bless!


    But... but.. but... it's "for the children!!!"
    --
    Jim H

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Ahem A Rivet's Shot@3:770/3 to Jim H on Tue Jan 12 21:05:30 2021
    On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:45:59 +0000
    Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief"
    to hang its hat on.

    Ultimately it does not, science hangs its hat on the belief that the universe actually is self consistent rather than just appearing to be so
    most of the time.

    --
    Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
    The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
    You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From TimS@3:770/3 to All on Tue Jan 12 21:38:18 2021
    On 12 Jan 2021 at 21:05:30 GMT, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
    wrote:

    On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:45:59 +0000
    Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief"
    to hang its hat on.

    Ultimately it does not, science hangs its hat on the belief that the universe actually is self consistent rather than just appearing to be so
    most of the time.

    And that what appears to be the case is likely actually the case, and not just made to appear so as an almighty joke played on us saps by an Almighty trying to be witty.

    --
    Tim

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Richard Kettlewell@3:770/3 to Jim H on Tue Jan 12 22:09:27 2021
    Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
    Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    Joe <joe@jretrading.com> writes:
    Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'.

    Not by modern standards it wasn’t. It was, famously, a trigger for >>tightening up the regulatory regimes.

    The refusal of the FDA to approve the drug suggests it didn't meet the standards of the time... which have been tightened considerably since.

    Many other countries approved it (hence the subsequent disaster) - the
    FDA (or possibly just the specific officer assigned to the application)
    was clearly ahead of the rest of the world at that point.

    --
    https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Axel Berger@3:770/3 to TimS on Tue Jan 12 22:46:52 2021
    TimS wrote:
    The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways"

    "Anyways" pained me the first few dozen times I heard it, but not I take
    it to be American vs. the English I try to speak (and fail -- you should
    hear my daughter about my accent).


    --
    /\ No | Dipl.-Ing. F. Axel Berger Tel: +49/ 221/ 7771 8067
    \ / HTML | Roald-Amundsen-Strae 2a Fax: +49/ 221/ 7771 8069
    X in | D-50829 Kln-Ossendorf http://berger-odenthal.de
    / \ Mail | -- No unannounced, large, binary attachments, please! --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Charlie Gibbs on Wed Jan 13 12:51:13 2021
    On 12/01/2021 19:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
    On 2021-01-12, TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

    On 12 Jan 2021 at 04:50:12 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
    wrote:

    On 11/01/2021 22:04, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

    That nicely takes care of creation science...

    Well no.

    In the end conventional science versus creation science is about what
    you find the most inconceivable - a Big Bang N billion years ago in
    which a broken symmetry started time in the exact way it appears, or a
    supernal Being who dreamed it all up a few thousand years ago and faked
    it to *look like* it was N billion years old. Or whatever the current
    figure is.

    If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in 4004 BC,
    then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 seconds ago, no
    I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.

    Perhaps it did. As I am trying to point out, its purely a question of
    which *narrative* you *choose to believe*. And the consequences of that particular belief.

    The reason the creationists believe what they do - and I spent an
    interesting dinner party finding out, is that there is, for them, only
    One True Word, and that's in the King James Bible. All else is delusion inspired by the devil



    And so on.

    But then such people would probably be unable to answer *why* the Supremem >> Being bothered to fake it up to look like billyuns.

    To test mankind, allegedly. So there's the bible, which takes you to
    heaven, and all this other stuff that goes to the Hot Place. Your
    choice, don't say you weren't warned, they are really only trying to
    *help mankind*. Just like Greta Thunderpants. And the Orange Jesus. We
    are overwhelmed with Good People carrying infallible moral compasses all
    trying to Help Mankind


    They've probably been following too many politicians.



    I think you should make the effort to try to understand the
    non-technical mind. And metaphysics.

    The fact is that there is no fact that is not interpreted in terms of
    some underlying world-view.

    That is what is really meant, when people say 'truth is relative to
    culture' (without usually understanding what it means)

    You are a techie. We like stuff to be reliable predictable and physical.
    The materialist world-view gives us a physical world ruled by natural
    law. That means we can do science. Our world-view allows us a great
    power. In many ways we can predict the future.

    But it - is as Kant would say - *a-priori* to our understanding.
    Although the idea of a material world is supported by the evidence that
    science works, it is not *proved* by it.

    Those of a religious or spiritual persuasion that argue on favour of
    belief in a sentient Creator who actually gives a shit, would argue that
    this gives life a purpose and a moral dimension that it otherwise
    totally lacks. And that is as *useful* as science is, in terms of
    species survival. A most sustaining and comforting _lie_, if you like.

    You are looking for the One True Stick. dude, it ain't there. Plenty of
    people will try and sell it to you, but is it the real one?

    All we can do if we are intellectually acute enough is to note the
    problem. And the problem is we have to assume something in order to
    proceed at all, and we have no way other than our progress, to establish whether what we assumed was true or not.

    Think Matrix. The material world is one humongous glorious act of faith,
    that we assume to be true, because it *works for us*.

    God concepts are one humongous glorious act of faith, that they assume
    to be true, because it *works for them*.

    You see my dilemma?



    --
    “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”

    ― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de
    M. de Voltaire

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Ahem A Rivet's Shot on Wed Jan 13 12:54:35 2021
    On 12/01/2021 19:57, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
    On 12 Jan 2021 19:00:21 GMT
    TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

    If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in
    4004 BC, then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2
    seconds ago, no I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.

    Why go for such extravagance ? All that's required is now.

    Indeed. And that is not inconsistent with some interpretations of the
    world, where time space and the material world are simply a rather
    inadequate way of relating to the Mysterious All.

    A view that is becoming less inconsistent with science the more physics
    pushes the limits of quantum reality...


    --
    There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
    that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
    emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent renewable energy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to TimS on Wed Jan 13 12:55:22 2021
    On 12/01/2021 19:01, TimS wrote:
    On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?

    The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways" or "lose"
    as "loose".

    Or those who say 'going forward' when they mean 'in future'


    --
    There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
    that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
    emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent renewable energy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Ahem A Rivet's Shot on Wed Jan 13 13:02:10 2021
    On 12/01/2021 21:05, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:45:59 +0000
    Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief"
    to hang its hat on.

    Ultimately it does not, science hangs its hat on the belief that the universe actually is self consistent rather than just appearing to be so
    most of the time.

    Aha. You really get it.


    --
    “The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
    the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

    - Bertrand Russell

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Jim H on Wed Jan 13 13:01:27 2021
    On 12/01/2021 20:45, Jim H wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 04:50:12 +0000, in <rtj9q5$jkr$1@dont-email.me>,
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    In the end conventional science versus creation science is about what
    you find the most inconceivable - a Big Bang N billion years ago in
    which a broken symmetry started time in the exact way it appears, or a
    supernal Being who dreamed it all up a few thousand years ago and faked
    it to *look like* it was N billion years old. Or whatever the current
    figure is.

    And those are not the only narratives that exist. And they are in the
    end metaphysical. They can't be proved to be correct, only more or less
    useful, in any given context.

    Its not turtles all the way down, it's *models*.


    Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief"
    to hang its hat on.


    Perhaps. That depends on what your purpose is. Science is about
    predicting the future, better, that's all. When you bother to think
    about it.

    Religion is about regulating a crowded society, and giving people in
    large societies a personal meaning and purpose in life.

    Just as useful in many respects.

    Before you can *do *science, you have to 'believe' in the material world
    of space time. If you don't there is nothing that science can
    demonstrate. There is no future to predict, is there?



    --
    Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle
    more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
    their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
    battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
    that they are dead.
    Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From TimS@3:770/3 to All on Wed Jan 13 13:29:51 2021
    On 13 Jan 2021 at 12:51:13 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/01/2021 19:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
    On 2021-01-12, TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

    On 12 Jan 2021 at 04:50:12 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
    wrote:

    On 11/01/2021 22:04, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

    That nicely takes care of creation science...

    Well no.

    In the end conventional science versus creation science is about what >>>> you find the most inconceivable - a Big Bang N billion years ago in
    which a broken symmetry started time in the exact way it appears, or a >>>> supernal Being who dreamed it all up a few thousand years ago and faked >>>> it to *look like* it was N billion years old. Or whatever the current >>>> figure is.

    If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in 4004 BC,
    then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 seconds ago, no
    I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.

    Perhaps it did. As I am trying to point out, its purely a question of
    which *narrative* you *choose to believe*. And the consequences of that particular belief.

    The reason the creationists believe what they do - and I spent an
    interesting dinner party finding out, is that there is, for them, only
    One True Word, and that's in the King James Bible. All else is delusion inspired by the devil

    So you have to believe in the Devil, for starters, an entity I don't believe
    in and for which I've never seen any evidence.

    And then there's King James, eh? I wonder why that one. My SWMBO, who did some theology at Uni, says that any modern version of the Bible has been copied and translated back and forth over the centuries by scribes with greater or lesser degrees of care, and greater or lesser detailed knowledge of the languages
    they were translating from, that you're bound to have transcription errors. Second, you can pretty much always find a Bible passage to support and another to oppose any particular PoV.

    So it's interesting as any other history book but shouldn't be taken as the firm unalterable direct and final Word of God. To do so is to make the same error that the Islamists make.

    --
    Tim

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to TimS on Wed Jan 13 13:35:34 2021
    On 12/01/2021 21:38, TimS wrote:
    And that what appears to be the case is likely actually the case, and not just
    made to appear so as an almighty joke played on us saps by an Almighty trying to be witty.

    That of course is why you need to really understand the Matrix proposition.

    That what appears to be the case could actually be utterly and
    completely wrong.

    And that is why Einstein smashed materialism unwittingly. He came up
    with an equivalent narrative that was utterly different from Newtonian metaphysics.

    Which was true? They couldn't *both* be true. And that shattered the
    assumption of materialism, that the world in facts was pretty much the
    way it appeared to be, with all the secrete hidden Laws swept up into a
    tidy bundle of linear differential equations..we kept the linear
    differential equations, but we traded in absolute time and absolute flat
    space for accuracy of prediction.

    And now with quantum physics, we are trading in strict Causality as well.

    And that is why philosophers of science have retreated from the position
    that you espouse, to a more useful working relationship with science,
    not as revealing facts, but as the construction of efficient models that
    work and give accurate predictions

    God theories work, but not to give accurate predictions. They work to
    bring meaning to peoples lives and to regulate the behaviour of societies.

    Once you abandon the idea that science or materialism and its underlying assumptions, its 'a-prioris', are the One True Stick, and see them just
    as another set of assumptions that need to be made to achieve certain
    things then you realised religion is no different except in its purpose.

    Neither has any monopoly on the Truth. Both are in the end inductive
    hypotheses - working from effects to causes - and therefore subject to
    the Problem of Induction', namely that given an effect, the here and now experience of your life, you cannot unequivocally say what *causes* it,
    and indeed the notion that *something must have*, is another unwarranted assumption that you are making.

    That the material world, space time, and our normal reasonable
    assumptions of cause and effect *work*, especially in physics (though
    less well in politics) is, in the end *not* 'strong evidence' that they
    are *correct*. Newton could have said the same about his forces, Neo
    about the Matrix. Galileo did say that about his heliocentrism, and yet
    all of them proved to be only limited approximate *models*. Which is
    precisely what the Catholic church tried to tell Galileo.

    To say more than that is to claim certainty where none exists, We appear
    to be beings that do not have unlimited computing power at our disposal,
    and the approximation of a 'real solid objective world out there,
    comprised mostly of 'things' we can ignore because 'they don't eat us
    and we can't eat them'' is a *useful* way to handle it. A good ad hoc
    working *model*. And if you can't handle the loneliness, and absolute
    lack of any hint as to what you ought to be doing about it, by all
    means shove an omniscient-creator-that-gives-a-shit in there, if it gets
    you through the night.

    Religion and science have their place. But neither is demonstrably true
    or indeed can be said to have any decidable truth content.

    My argument is to dethrone *both*, and see them for what they are.
    Useful *models* that in their own way work, but neither of which should
    ever be held up to the the One and Only True Stick.


    --
    “The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
    the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

    - Bertrand Russell

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From TimS@3:770/3 to All on Wed Jan 13 13:34:47 2021
    On 13 Jan 2021 at 12:54:35 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/01/2021 19:57, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
    On 12 Jan 2021 19:00:21 GMT
    TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

    If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in
    4004 BC, then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 >>> seconds ago, no I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.

    Why go for such extravagance ? All that's required is now.

    Indeed. And that is not inconsistent with some interpretations of the
    world, where time space and the material world are simply a rather
    inadequate way of relating to the Mysterious All.

    A view that is becoming less inconsistent with science the more physics pushes the limits of quantum reality...

    Of course, at any point in history one could take the view that Now is good enough, and that any inconsistencies we observe are just us noticing the folks at Reality Control adjusting the scenery.

    In fact for us today, we'd not have to bother worrying about dark matter keeping the galaxies together, because they were only created 10**-43 secs ago and that in a million years held together only by Newton/Einstein they will
    fly apart doesn't matter. Convenient that!

    --
    Tim

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Ahem A Rivet's Shot@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Wed Jan 13 13:28:46 2021
    On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:55:22 +0000
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/01/2021 19:01, TimS wrote:
    On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?

    The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways" or "lose" as "loose".

    Or those who say 'going forward' when they mean 'in future'

    "in the fullness of time" when they mean "never".


    --
    Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
    The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
    You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Jim H on Wed Jan 13 13:38:06 2021
    On 12/01/2021 21:08, Jim H wrote:
    If something can't be used until it's been in safe use for 10 years,
    it will never be used.

    LOL, That's the 'precautionary principle' in full flight there, then.

    Modern health and safety regulations would have banned fire, stone axes
    and indeed the Wheel.

    And is well on its way to doing so today.




    --
    Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
    twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
    on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
    projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

    Richard Lindzen

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Jim H on Wed Jan 13 13:52:16 2021
    On 12/01/2021 21:27, Jim H wrote:
    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 13:54:21 +0000, in <rthlad$uq0$3@dont-email.me>,
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    sometimes you have to play the percentages, despite what socialist
    politicians tell you about the completely safe-space kindergarten they
    will build for you if you give them all your money and let them have
    complete authority....

    ...bless!


    But... but.. but... it's "for the children!!!"

    Believe that, and you will believe anything. :-)

    --
    “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

    H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Jim H on Wed Jan 13 13:51:18 2021
    On 12/01/2021 21:26, Jim H wrote:
    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:29:52 +0000, in <rthgc1$jqo$1@dont-email.me>,
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    Life is risky.

    In the end cost benefit analysis is all we can use.

    Perhaps pregnant women should avoid it, but people are dying *already*.

    It was very unfortunate with thalidomide that the effects showed up in
    foetal poisoning only. The medical profession simply hadn't seen that
    one coming.

    Yes they did! The problem is that the medical professionals involved
    in the testing didn't have to report all the side effects at the
    time... and they didn't. Even before any tests in humans the
    teratogenic effects of Thalidomide were seen in animal testing. But
    only in some species and not others.

    Well I didn't know that and wont argue that point. I do know that Big
    Pharma likes to sell expensive drugs and is somewhat economical with the
    truth in so doing.

    Just as Boeing likes to sell aeroplanes.
    Are we seeing a 'pickle fork ' crash....(google it) in Indonesia?

    The point is that regulators are always one step behind, and that's how
    quality management goes., You don't fix problems that haven't occurred.

    Would you want your wife or daughter of child bearing age, with a
    likelyhood of becoming pregnant, to use a drug that caused serious
    fetal deformity in say rats, but not hamsters? Does it make a
    difference in your answer that the problem was with taking the drug
    during the first 3-4 weeks of pregnancy when few know for sure that
    they're pregnant and so won't know to stop taking it in time to
    prevent defects?

    Dont have either. Pass.

    Life is risky, but it doesn't need to be that much of a risk for yet
    another drug that did the same thing as many other drugs available at
    the time. Not to mention that use to prevent morning sickness was an
    "off label" use.

    Well that is of course a value judgement. In terms of COVID 19, we have
    a proven lethal virus, and an unproven but definitely far less
    immediately lethal vaccine.

    We have national and global economic crises caused by the reaction to
    that virus.

    Even if the vaccine proves ineffective, there is, as I have said enough
    to bore you, the problem of public *perception*. Politically people vote
    their *understanding*, not any objective 'reality' - simply because they
    have no idea. And at this point in time there is a round, as Stephen Fry
    is wont to say of 'General Ignorance'

    I dont know what et right answer is, I do know that if I were in a
    position of authority I would probably be doing exactly what TPTB are
    doing, locking down when the death rate goes up, and hoping that they
    have a reasonably effective vaccine, banging it in as many arms as
    possible and pushing the boundaries of a free society to do do, in the
    hope - and it will be only a hope - that this gets the world back to
    work, and not economic meltdown and or a global pandemic that clears
    2/3rds or more of its population.

    And maintaining a false face of total optimism, because pessimism will
    just make it worse.



    --
    Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
    twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
    on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
    projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

    Richard Lindzen

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to TimS on Wed Jan 13 14:17:26 2021
    On 13/01/2021 13:29, TimS wrote:
    On 13 Jan 2021 at 12:51:13 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/01/2021 19:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
    On 2021-01-12, TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

    On 12 Jan 2021 at 04:50:12 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
    wrote:

    On 11/01/2021 22:04, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

    That nicely takes care of creation science...

    Well no.

    In the end conventional science versus creation science is about what >>>>> you find the most inconceivable - a Big Bang N billion years ago in >>>>> which a broken symmetry started time in the exact way it appears, or a >>>>> supernal Being who dreamed it all up a few thousand years ago and faked >>>>> it to *look like* it was N billion years old. Or whatever the current >>>>> figure is.

    If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in 4004 BC,
    then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 seconds ago, no
    I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.

    Perhaps it did. As I am trying to point out, its purely a question of
    which *narrative* you *choose to believe*. And the consequences of that
    particular belief.

    The reason the creationists believe what they do - and I spent an
    interesting dinner party finding out, is that there is, for them, only
    One True Word, and that's in the King James Bible. All else is delusion
    inspired by the devil

    So you have to believe in the Devil, for starters, an entity I don't believe in and for which I've never seen any evidence.

    Faced with a proposition odf a One True Perfect God and the manifest imperfection of the world, the devil simply embodies all the chaitic destructive forces - if you have Yang, you need a yin. If you have
    matter, you need antimatter...


    And then there's King James, eh? I wonder why that one.

    That's the one they took to America.

    Remember the pilgrim fathers were religious bigots.

    Too stuffy even for protestant England.

    My SWMBO, who did some
    theology at Uni, says that any modern version of the Bible has been copied and
    translated back and forth over the centuries by scribes with greater or lesser
    degrees of care, and greater or lesser detailed knowledge of the languages they were translating from, that you're bound to have transcription errors. Second, you can pretty much always find a Bible passage to support and another
    to oppose any particular PoV.

    she is completely correct.

    So it's interesting as any other history book but shouldn't be taken as the firm unalterable direct and final Word of God. To do so is to make the same error that the Islamists make.

    I am saying that to them, that is the One True Word. Every metaphysic
    has to start *somewhere*, with some assumption, even yours....



    --
    “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
    obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
    they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

    ― Leo Tolstoy

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Ahem A Rivet's Shot on Wed Jan 13 14:24:14 2021
    On 13/01/2021 13:28, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
    On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:55:22 +0000
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/01/2021 19:01, TimS wrote:
    On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?

    The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways" or
    "lose" as "loose".

    Or those who say 'going forward' when they mean 'in future'

    "in the fullness of time" when they mean "never".


    :-)

    --
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
    returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

    Mark Twain

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Nikolaj Lazic@3:770/3 to All on Wed Jan 13 14:30:57 2021
    Dana Tue, 12 Jan 2021 19:57:21 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> napis'o:
    On 12 Jan 2021 19:00:21 GMT
    TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

    If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in
    4004 BC, then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2
    seconds ago, no I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.

    Why go for such extravagance ? All that's required is now.

    And not I remembered one episode of Twilight zone... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Matter_of_Minutes

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Martin Gregorie@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Wed Jan 13 15:25:23 2021
    On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:51:13 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    The reason the creationists believe what they do - and I spent an
    interesting dinner party finding out, is that there is, for them, only
    One True Word, and that's in the King James Bible. All else is delusion inspired by the devil

    I hadn't realised that the King James is their unshakable foundation,
    when there are so many versions to choose from. If you didn't listen to
    it, I can thoroughly recommend the Radio 4 mini series

    "A History of the Bible" by John Barton.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000qlrx/episodes/player

    I'm not of the religious persuasion, but I think that series is excellent
    and I learnt a lot from hearing it.



    --
    --
    Martin | martin at
    Gregorie | gregorie dot org

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Ahem A Rivet's Shot@3:770/3 to TimS on Wed Jan 13 13:42:23 2021
    On 13 Jan 2021 13:29:51 GMT
    TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

    On 13 Jan 2021 at 12:51:13 GMT, The Natural Philosopher

    The reason the creationists believe what they do - and I spent an interesting dinner party finding out, is that there is, for them, only
    One True Word, and that's in the King James Bible. All else is delusion inspired by the devil

    So you have to believe in the Devil, for starters, an entity I don't
    believe in and for which I've never seen any evidence.

    Nope, you just have to accept that there are people who do.

    And then there's King James, eh? I wonder why that one. My SWMBO, who did

    That translation was supposed to have been guided by God or
    somesuch, I forget the exact details.

    some theology at Uni, says that any modern version of the Bible has been copied and translated back and forth over the centuries by scribes with greater or lesser degrees of care, and greater or lesser detailed
    knowledge of the languages they were translating from, that you're bound

    Hence the need for a translation guided by God to be the official version.

    You either believe this stuff or you don't - for the record I don't.

    --
    Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
    The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
    You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Charlie Gibbs@3:770/3 to Ahem A Rivet's Shot on Wed Jan 13 18:38:49 2021
    On 2021-01-13, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

    On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:55:22 +0000
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/01/2021 19:01, TimS wrote:

    On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?

    The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways" or
    "lose" as "loose".

    Or those who say 'going forward' when they mean 'in future'

    "in the fullness of time" when they mean "never".

    "at this point in time" when "now" would suffice.

    "Orientate" is an example of the trend toward polysyllabificationizing.

    --
    /~\ Charlie Gibbs | "Some of you may die,
    \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | but it's a sacrifice
    X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | I'm willing to make."
    / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jim H@3:770/3 to Shot on Wed Jan 13 18:33:16 2021
    On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 21:05:30 +0000, in <20210112210530.699aeae0650ac684503cd6a8@eircom.net>, Ahem A Rivet's
    Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

    On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:45:59 +0000
    Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief"
    to hang its hat on.

    Ultimately it does not, science hangs its hat on the belief that the
    universe actually is self consistent rather than just appearing to be so
    most of the time.

    I'd like to hear your definition of "most."

    Granted the "Newtonian" view of the universe is slightly different
    from the quantum view, but the difference is miniscule when dealing
    with things that aren't almost infinitesimally small (particle
    physics) or incredibly massive (black holes). In those two cases the
    classical view - the only thing available to Newton and the common man
    - breaks down and the quantum view is required to explain things more
    exactly.

    In any case, we can observe and predict the behavior of physical
    things - whether by Newton or quantum - infinitely better than we can
    say anything provable about things that have nothing but belief to
    back them.

    I don't buy the *TOTAL* debunking of anything based only on "we can
    never know for sure and thus everything is only belief." This is
    little more than sophistry in my book. The smart money goes with
    widely accepted (among scientists) science as being correct at least
    as far as it goes. There always seems to be more that builds on what
    is already known. Rarely, at least in the last several centuries, does
    it throw everything we "know" into a cocked hat.

    That last said, I'd guess the poor "string theory" or "M theory" folks
    were a little disturbed when the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard
    Model of particle physics was proven to exist when the string or M
    theory model had no Higgs boson. Back to the drawing board. Not
    everything necessarily debunked, but it's a huge problem for a theory
    to deny the existence of thing that's proven to exist.

    Now don't tell be we only "believe" Higgs bosons exist.
    --
    Jim H

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jim H@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Wed Jan 13 19:07:36 2021
    On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:35:34 +0000, in <rtmsv6$m8o$1@dont-email.me>,
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/01/2021 21:38, TimS wrote:
    And that what appears to be the case is likely actually the case, and not just
    made to appear so as an almighty joke played on us saps by an Almighty trying
    to be witty.

    That of course is why you need to really understand the Matrix proposition.

    That what appears to be the case could actually be utterly and
    completely wrong.

    And that is why Einstein smashed materialism unwittingly. He came up
    with an equivalent narrative that was utterly different from Newtonian >metaphysics.

    Utterly different in terms of the mathematics, but the result for
    objects observable by Newton is essentially unchanged. It's only at
    the infinitesimally small and incredibly massive scale that Newton,
    Einstein, and Quantum theory differ.

    Which was true? They couldn't *both* be true. And that shattered the >assumption of materialism, that the world in facts was pretty much the
    way it appeared to be, with all the secrete hidden Laws swept up into a
    tidy bundle of linear differential equations..we kept the linear
    differential equations, but we traded in absolute time and absolute flat >space for accuracy of prediction.

    And now with quantum physics, we are trading in strict Causality as well.

    And that is why philosophers of science have retreated from the position
    that you espouse, to a more useful working relationship with science,
    not as revealing facts, but as the construction of efficient models that
    work and give accurate predictions

    God theories work, but not to give accurate predictions. They work to
    bring meaning to peoples lives and to regulate the behaviour of societies.

    But assertions about God are essentially infinitely less provable than scientific assertions about physical objects.

    Once you abandon the idea that science or materialism and its underlying >assumptions, its 'a-prioris', are the One True Stick, and see them just
    as another set of assumptions that need to be made to achieve certain
    things then you realised religion is no different except in its purpose.

    I think you've stepped squarely into the arena of sophistry with this.

    Neither has any monopoly on the Truth. Both are in the end inductive >hypotheses - working from effects to causes - and therefore subject to
    the Problem of Induction', namely that given an effect, the here and now >experience of your life, you cannot unequivocally say what *causes* it,
    and indeed the notion that *something must have*, is another unwarranted >assumption that you are making.

    That the material world, space time, and our normal reasonable
    assumptions of cause and effect *work*, especially in physics (though
    less well in politics) is, in the end *not* 'strong evidence' that they
    are *correct*. Newton could have said the same about his forces, Neo
    about the Matrix. Galileo did say that about his heliocentrism, and yet
    all of them proved to be only limited approximate *models*. Which is >precisely what the Catholic church tried to tell Galileo.

    The Catholic church wasn't dealing in anything but belief and a fear
    that an unprovable religious view would be proven incorrect whether or
    not the view held by Galileo was perfect. It was close enough to
    throughly disprove the view of the church and thus Galileo had to be
    silenced.

    It would be best if science left the unprovable beliefs of religion
    alone simply because belief by definition is unprovable one way or
    another. And for religion to leave the views of science that
    accurately describe the world we can observe alone... especially when
    they're thoroughly provable.

    To say more than that is to claim certainty where none exists, We appear
    to be beings that do not have unlimited computing power at our disposal,
    and the approximation of a 'real solid objective world out there,
    comprised mostly of 'things' we can ignore because 'they don't eat us
    and we can't eat them'' is a *useful* way to handle it. A good ad hoc
    working *model*. And if you can't handle the loneliness, and absolute
    lack of any hint as to what you ought to be doing about it, by all
    means shove an omniscient-creator-that-gives-a-shit in there, if it gets
    you through the night.

    No problem, but don't shove him down the throat of those who don't
    care to believe... unless one can provide the same level of proof for
    the existence of such a supreme being as science can provide for its assertions.

    Religion and science have their place. But neither is demonstrably true
    or indeed can be said to have any decidable truth content.

    Sophistry.

    My argument is to dethrone *both*, and see them for what they are.
    Useful *models* that in their own way work, but neither of which should
    ever be held up to the the One and Only True Stick.

    I know someone who is deeply religious and too often pushes his
    beliefs well past the point of being annoying. When I get tired of it
    I ask him to "prove it" at which point he goes off on a well prepared
    and rehearsed tangent involving the nature of absolute truth. I ask
    him to define some of the words he uses. The end result is that he
    goes in circles and can't prove anything... doesn't even try to prove
    anything just goes on about the nature of absolute truth... all of
    which doesn't mean that a God absolutely doesn't exist, but that it
    can't be proven and should be left in the realm of belief and those
    who don't believe should be spared from having it shoved down their
    throats. Science is built on demonstrably provable things with more
    recent theorys being subject to acceptable proof before being widely
    accepted.

    Science and religion should stay out of each others arena despite the interesting and amusing debates that arise when they don't.
    --
    Jim H

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jim H@3:770/3 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Wed Jan 13 19:14:40 2021
    On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 22:09:27 +0000, in
    <877doh959k.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
    Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    Joe <joe@jretrading.com> writes:
    Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'.

    Not by modern standards it wasnt. It was, famously, a trigger for >>>tightening up the regulatory regimes.

    The refusal of the FDA to approve the drug suggests it didn't meet the
    standards of the time... which have been tightened considerably since.

    Many other countries approved it (hence the subsequent disaster) - the
    FDA (or possibly just the specific officer assigned to the application)
    was clearly ahead of the rest of the world at that point.

    The rest of the world should have demanded all of the test results...
    which would have demonstrated the teratogenic side effects in certain
    species of laboratory animals... suggesting either rejection of the
    current application was necessary or else a LOT more testing in
    animals, including pregnant ones, was required. Had that happened I
    bet that a LOT more testing may have taken place, but would never have
    resulted in another application. I don't recall if the company was
    sued into oblivion, but it should have been.
    --
    Jim H

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Ahem A Rivet's Shot@3:770/3 to Jim H on Wed Jan 13 19:25:31 2021
    On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:33:16 +0000
    Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 21:05:30 +0000, in <20210112210530.699aeae0650ac684503cd6a8@eircom.net>, Ahem A Rivet's
    Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

    On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:45:59 +0000
    Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief"
    to hang its hat on.

    Ultimately it does not, science hangs its hat on the belief that
    the
    universe actually is self consistent rather than just appearing to be so >most of the time.

    I'd like to hear your definition of "most."

    I've yet to see it not appear to be self consistent.

    I don't buy the *TOTAL* debunking of anything based only on "we can
    never know for sure and thus everything is only belief."

    It is however the reality of the situation. We can never know for
    sure, we can only build the best models we can.

    This is
    little more than sophistry in my book. The smart money goes with
    widely accepted (among scientists) science as being correct at least

    For sure - but that doesn't make it true, it just makes it a
    sensible belief.

    --
    Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
    The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
    You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jim H@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Wed Jan 13 19:23:00 2021
    On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:38:06 +0000, in <rtmt3u$m8o$2@dont-email.me>,
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/01/2021 21:08, Jim H wrote:
    If something can't be used until it's been in safe use for 10 years,
    it will never be used.

    LOL, That's the 'precautionary principle' in full flight there, then.

    You snipped the context needed for my statement. One might suspect it
    was done intentionally, or due to not reading for comprehension.

    Go back and read <i62scuF5jg5U11@mid.individual.net>... the remarks by
    TimS and the material he was remarking on.

    Modern health and safety regulations would have banned fire, stone axes
    and indeed the Wheel.

    And is well on its way to doing so today.

    Gross exaggeration to illustrate a viewpoint is a really poor debate
    tactic.
    --
    Jim H

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Jim H@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Wed Jan 13 19:36:58 2021
    On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:52:16 +0000, in <rtmtug$se9$2@dont-email.me>,
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/01/2021 21:27, Jim H wrote:
    On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 13:54:21 +0000, in <rthlad$uq0$3@dont-email.me>,
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    sometimes you have to play the percentages, despite what socialist
    politicians tell you about the completely safe-space kindergarten they
    will build for you if you give them all your money and let them have
    complete authority....

    ...bless!

    But... but.. but... it's "for the children!!!"

    Believe that, and you will believe anything. :-)

    At the time that phrase was popular, and used seriously, I
    (figuratively of course) grabbed my wallet and backed up against a
    sturdy wall whenever I heard it. Yep, they not only wanted your money,
    but also wanted to "bend you over" too.

    Later it was for the polar bears.

    Not sure what's the latest.

    --
    Jim H

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Jim H on Wed Jan 13 19:46:28 2021
    On 13/01/2021 18:33, Jim H wrote:
    I don't buy the*TOTAL* debunking of anything based only on "we can
    never know for sure and thus everything is only belief." This is
    little more than sophistry in my book. The smart money goes with
    widely accepted (among scientists) science as being correct at least
    as far as it goes. There always seems to be more that builds on what
    is already known. Rarely, at least in the last several centuries, does
    it throw everything we "know" into a cocked hat.
    The problem is deep and you are sweeping it under the carpet, and it
    goes to the heart of all 'knowledge' about the world, because all of it
    is ultimately *models* - inductive propositions that are more or less
    useful. Nowhere in any of it is there the solid testability that allows
    us to call it 'truth'.

    The real point here is not to dismantle ordinary knowledge that works
    pretty well, but to make us aware that ordinary knowledge that works
    pretty well is not the only take we can have on the universe. It is the antidote to 'One True Stickiness' that forces people to believe that
    they have it right, and other people have it wrong.

    Is Einstein truth, or just a model? - if truth then how come we believed
    in Newton?



    That last said, I'd guess the poor "string theory" or "M theory" folks
    were a little disturbed when the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard
    Model of particle physics was proven to exist when the string or M
    theory model had no Higgs boson. Back to the drawing board. Not
    everything necessarily debunked, but it's a huge problem for a theory
    to deny the existence of thing that's proven to exist.

    Now don't tell be we only "believe" Higgs bosons exist.

    Of course we only believe it. We only believe ANYTHING exists in *any particular way*.

    It is simply another *explanation* for what is pretty tenth hand
    *experience*.

    I assume from your position that you are ultimately a materialist who
    believes something like 'consciousness is an emergent property of matter'.

    I merely note that if you flip that and assume that the material world
    is, at least in part, an emergent property of consciousness, a lot of
    quantum stuff becomes a lot easier to model - and the 'problem of consciousness' vanishes.

    Or better still try a model along the lines of Kant's transcendental
    idealism which is 'the objective world exists, but it isn't the world of
    our experience: That is modulated by our consciousness to create
    something we can relate to'.

    Also, the further from inanimate objects we get, the more Idealism
    works. When explaining people's behaviour, what counts more, what the
    world *actually* is? Or what they *think* it is?

    A multi-trillion global industry exists to ignore the former and control
    the latter.

    Materialism works reasonably well for physics. Idealism rules social
    science. Everyone thinks they have the One Tue Stick.

    That view needs to be transcended.


    --
    "What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
    "I don't."
    "Don't what?"
    "Think about Gay Marriage."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Charlie Gibbs on Wed Jan 13 19:49:36 2021
    On 13/01/2021 18:38, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
    On 2021-01-13, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

    On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:55:22 +0000
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/01/2021 19:01, TimS wrote:

    On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?

    The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways" or >>>> "lose" as "loose".

    Or those who say 'going forward' when they mean 'in future'

    "in the fullness of time" when they mean "never".

    "at this point in time" when "now" would suffice.

    "Orientate" is an example of the trend toward polysyllabificationizing.

    In our little island we love that fact that the original noun, 'a
    burglar' became in efficient English the verb to 'burgle' and in pompous American to 'burglarize' ... Do you also have burglarizations, or did
    you manage burglaries instead?


    --
    There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
    that sound good.

    Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Jim H on Wed Jan 13 20:08:46 2021
    On 13/01/2021 19:07, Jim H wrote:
    On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:35:34 +0000, in <rtmsv6$m8o$1@dont-email.me>,
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/01/2021 21:38, TimS wrote:
    And that what appears to be the case is likely actually the case, and not just
    made to appear so as an almighty joke played on us saps by an Almighty trying
    to be witty.

    That of course is why you need to really understand the Matrix proposition. >>
    That what appears to be the case could actually be utterly and
    completely wrong.

    And that is why Einstein smashed materialism unwittingly. He came up
    with an equivalent narrative that was utterly different from Newtonian
    metaphysics.

    Utterly different in terms of the mathematics, but the result for
    objects observable by Newton is essentially unchanged. It's only at
    the infinitesimally small and incredibly massive scale that Newton,
    Einstein, and Quantum theory differ.


    But that is not the point, you have changed ground Jim. Which is *true*?
    Flast space and time and forces, or bent space and relative tine?


    Which was true? They couldn't *both* be true. And that shattered the
    assumption of materialism, that the world in facts was pretty much the
    way it appeared to be, with all the secrete hidden Laws swept up into a
    tidy bundle of linear differential equations..we kept the linear
    differential equations, but we traded in absolute time and absolute flat
    space for accuracy of prediction.

    And now with quantum physics, we are trading in strict Causality as well.

    And that is why philosophers of science have retreated from the position
    that you espouse, to a more useful working relationship with science,
    not as revealing facts, but as the construction of efficient models that
    work and give accurate predictions

    God theories work, but not to give accurate predictions. They work to
    bring meaning to peoples lives and to regulate the behaviour of societies.

    But assertions about God are essentially infinitely less provable than scientific assertions about physical objects.

    No assertion is provably true. That is the problem of induction. The dog
    that didn't bark in the night didn't bark because.,...

    ...it was in another dimension at the time
    ...it was drugged and asleep
    ...it was gagged and tied up out of earshot
    ...pixies had stolen its bark
    ...it barked and there was no one there to hear it.
    ...it had a sore throat.
    ...it didn't like the horse (which had kicked it once, and because it
    was actually a hyper intelligent denizen of Xaragon V, it let the horse
    get what was coming to it.

    ...etc.
    Occam instructs us to pick the simplest not because its true, but
    because since we cannot know which one is true, we can at least be lazy
    and pick the easiest one to handle

    Popper made the point. *Scientific* propositions must be provable to be *false*, potentially.

    We start with effects, we posit causes, if the posited causes cannot
    provide the required effects, we bin them, if they cannot be tested to
    see if they provide the required effects, they are metaphysical and not science. If they can be tested and don't fail the tests, they are science.

    God theories cannot be tested. They are not science.


    Once you abandon the idea that science or materialism and its underlying
    assumptions, its 'a-prioris', are the One True Stick, and see them just
    as another set of assumptions that need to be made to achieve certain
    things then you realised religion is no different except in its purpose.

    I think you've stepped squarely into the arena of sophistry with this.


    That just means you haven't understood it.

    Neither has any monopoly on the Truth. Both are in the end inductive
    hypotheses - working from effects to causes - and therefore subject to
    the Problem of Induction', namely that given an effect, the here and now
    experience of your life, you cannot unequivocally say what *causes* it,
    and indeed the notion that *something must have*, is another unwarranted
    assumption that you are making.

    That the material world, space time, and our normal reasonable
    assumptions of cause and effect *work*, especially in physics (though
    less well in politics) is, in the end *not* 'strong evidence' that they
    are *correct*. Newton could have said the same about his forces, Neo
    about the Matrix. Galileo did say that about his heliocentrism, and yet
    all of them proved to be only limited approximate *models*. Which is
    precisely what the Catholic church tried to tell Galileo.

    The Catholic church wasn't dealing in anything but belief and a fear
    that an unprovable religious view would be proven incorrect whether or
    not the view held by Galileo was perfect. It was close enough to
    throughly disprove the view of the church and thus Galileo had to be silenced.

    No that isn't what happened. The church was perfectly happy that Galileo
    teach the method as a way of calculating planetary orbits. What thy
    objected to was his insistence that it was 'true'


    It would be best if science left the unprovable beliefs of religion
    alone simply because belief by definition is unprovable one way or
    another. And for religion to leave the views of science that
    accurately describe the world we can observe alone... especially when
    they're thoroughly provable.

    But they are *not* provable.


    To say more than that is to claim certainty where none exists, We appear
    to be beings that do not have unlimited computing power at our disposal,
    and the approximation of a 'real solid objective world out there,
    comprised mostly of 'things' we can ignore because 'they don't eat us
    and we can't eat them'' is a *useful* way to handle it. A good ad hoc
    working *model*. And if you can't handle the loneliness, and absolute
    lack of any hint as to what you ought to be doing about it, by all
    means shove an omniscient-creator-that-gives-a-shit in there, if it gets
    you through the night.

    No problem, but don't shove him down the throat of those who don't
    care to believe... unless one can provide the same level of proof for
    the existence of such a supreme being as science can provide for its assertions.

    Religion and science have their place. But neither is demonstrably true
    or indeed can be said to have any decidable truth content.

    Sophistry.

    that's just your hand wavey way of being in denial. I am sad.


    My argument is to dethrone *both*, and see them for what they are.
    Useful *models* that in their own way work, but neither of which should
    ever be held up to the the One and Only True Stick.

    I know someone who is deeply religious and too often pushes his
    beliefs well past the point of being annoying. When I get tired of it
    I ask him to "prove it" at which point he goes off on a well prepared
    and rehearsed tangent involving the nature of absolute truth. I ask
    him to define some of the words he uses. The end result is that he
    goes in circles and can't prove anything... doesn't even try to prove anything just goes on about the nature of absolute truth... all of
    which doesn't mean that a God absolutely doesn't exist, but that it
    can't be proven and should be left in the realm of belief and those
    who don't believe should be spared from having it shoved down their
    throats. Science is built on demonstrably provable things with more
    recent theorys being subject to acceptable proof before being widely accepted.

    Science is not built on 'demonstrably provable things'. It is a set of consistent models that work, that's all.

    Your insistence that they are provable is your sophistry, your One True
    Stick.

    Science and religion should stay out of each others arena despite the interesting and amusing debates that arise when they don't.

    They are in the same arena. Both are areas of human knowledge, they have different attributes and purposes but like all knowledge, neither are demonstrably 'true' and only people who act on faith and belief would
    claim that either was.


    --
    There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
    that sound good.

    Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Jim H on Wed Jan 13 20:16:49 2021
    On 13/01/2021 19:23, Jim H wrote:
    On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:38:06 +0000, in <rtmt3u$m8o$2@dont-email.me>,
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/01/2021 21:08, Jim H wrote:
    If something can't be used until it's been in safe use for 10 years,
    it will never be used.

    LOL, That's the 'precautionary principle' in full flight there, then.

    You snipped the context needed for my statement. One might suspect it
    was done intentionally, or due to not reading for comprehension.

    Go back and read <i62scuF5jg5U11@mid.individual.net>... the remarks by
    TimS and the material he was remarking on.

    Modern health and safety regulations would have banned fire, stone axes
    and indeed the Wheel.

    And is well on its way to doing so today.


    I said that. Not Tim.


    Gross exaggeration to illustrate a viewpoint is a really poor debate
    tactic.

    I think not,. It's only the logical equivalent of the Calculus.
    Argumentum ad absurdum...is a totally valid methodology

    I merely pointed out that the logical conclusions of the precautionary principle is that no one ever does anything at all for fear it might
    have unknown unseen and unforeseeable results.


    Your statement was humorous, because taken at face value it basically is
    an oxymoron.


    --
    Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
    doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
    don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From TimS@3:770/3 to All on Wed Jan 13 20:56:23 2021
    On 13 Jan 2021 at 19:46:28 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 13/01/2021 18:33, Jim H wrote:
    I don't buy the*TOTAL* debunking of anything based only on "we can
    never know for sure and thus everything is only belief." This is
    little more than sophistry in my book. The smart money goes with
    widely accepted (among scientists) science as being correct at least
    as far as it goes. There always seems to be more that builds on what
    is already known. Rarely, at least in the last several centuries, does
    it throw everything we "know" into a cocked hat.
    The problem is deep and you are sweeping it under the carpet, and it
    goes to the heart of all 'knowledge' about the world, because all of it
    is ultimately *models* - inductive propositions that are more or less
    useful. Nowhere in any of it is there the solid testability that allows
    us to call it 'truth'.

    The real point here is not to dismantle ordinary knowledge that works
    pretty well, but to make us aware that ordinary knowledge that works
    pretty well is not the only take we can have on the universe. It is the antidote to 'One True Stickiness' that forces people to believe that
    they have it right, and other people have it wrong.

    Is Einstein truth, or just a model? - if truth then how come we believed
    in Newton?

    Newton's gravity did as good a job as could be measured against at the time. The anomaly pointed up by the precession of the axis of Mercury's orbit hadn't been noticed yet, and it was a *huge* advance on what went before.

    Remember also that if you simplify Einstein's theory (presumably by setting speed of light to infinity), then AIUI Einstein's theory simplifies down to exactly Newton. So there's no real conflict.

    --
    Tim

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From TimS@3:770/3 to Jim H on Wed Jan 13 21:06:44 2021
    On 13 Jan 2021 at 19:23:00 GMT, Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    Go back and read <i62scuF5jg5U11@mid.individual.net>...

    Usenapp seems to be creating a mailto: link, here.

    --
    Tim

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Joe@3:770/3 to TimS on Wed Jan 13 21:20:50 2021
    On 12 Jan 2021 19:01:47 GMT
    TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

    On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?

    The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways"
    or "lose" as "loose".


    Almost all problems throughout history have been caused by the ruling
    class, whether they were monarchs or politicians.

    Politicians claim to solve problems, but they are almost always problems
    that were created by other politicians.

    --
    Joe

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Ahem A Rivet's Shot@3:770/3 to Jim H on Wed Jan 13 21:16:44 2021
    On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 19:36:58 +0000
    Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:52:16 +0000, in <rtmtug$se9$2@dont-email.me>,
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/01/2021 21:27, Jim H wrote:

    But... but.. but... it's "for the children!!!"

    Believe that, and you will believe anything. :-)

    At the time that phrase was popular, and used seriously, I
    (figuratively of course) grabbed my wallet and backed up against a
    sturdy wall whenever I heard it. Yep, they not only wanted your money,
    but also wanted to "bend you over" too.

    Later it was for the polar bears.

    Not sure what's the latest.

    The rain forests.

    --
    Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
    The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
    You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Ahem A Rivet's Shot@3:770/3 to TimS on Wed Jan 13 21:13:08 2021
    On 13 Jan 2021 20:56:23 GMT
    TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

    On 13 Jan 2021 at 19:46:28 GMT, The Natural Philosopher

    Is Einstein truth, or just a model? - if truth then how come we
    believed in Newton?

    Newton's gravity did as good a job as could be measured against at the
    time. The anomaly pointed up by the precession of the axis of Mercury's

    Yes it is a model that delivers a *very* good approximation to observation.

    orbit hadn't been noticed yet, and it was a *huge* advance on what went before.

    For sure.

    Remember also that if you simplify Einstein's theory (presumably by
    setting speed of light to infinity), then AIUI Einstein's theory
    simplifies down to exactly Newton. So there's no real conflict.

    That is indeed true, and being in close agreement to Newton is a requirement for any model of dynamics because that is a very good
    approximation to observation.

    However we can be quite certain that none of Newtonian Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String
    Theory ... are in fact accurate descriptions of how the universe really
    works because *all* of them fail to match observation under some
    conditions. So we do *not* have a handle on 'the truth' just some pretty
    good looking approximations.

    The faith part in science comes in with the assumption that it is possible to construct ever more accurate models because we are modelling something that really does behave predictably. There is no way of knowing
    that the universe does behave predictably everywhere and at all times, but
    if it doesn't then we can't model it so that is a useful assumption that
    has so far not been invalidated.

    --
    Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
    The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
    You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Martin Gregorie@3:770/3 to Joe on Wed Jan 13 21:53:46 2021
    On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 21:20:50 +0000, Joe wrote:

    On 12 Jan 2021 19:01:47 GMT TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

    On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?

    The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways"
    or "lose" as "loose".


    Almost all problems throughout history have been caused by the ruling
    class, whether they were monarchs or politicians.

    Add religious leaders to that list.


    --
    --
    Martin | martin at
    Gregorie | gregorie dot org

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Charlie Gibbs@3:770/3 to Joe on Thu Jan 14 03:03:51 2021
    On 2021-01-13, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On 12 Jan 2021 19:01:47 GMT
    TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

    On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?

    The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways"
    or "lose" as "loose".

    Almost all problems throughout history have been caused by the ruling
    class, whether they were monarchs or politicians.

    Politicians claim to solve problems, but they are almost always problems
    that were created by other politicians.

    Or themselves.

    --
    /~\ Charlie Gibbs | "Some of you may die,
    \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | but it's a sacrifice
    X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | I'm willing to make."
    / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to TimS on Thu Jan 14 05:48:16 2021
    On 13/01/2021 20:56, TimS wrote:
    On 13 Jan 2021 at 19:46:28 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 13/01/2021 18:33, Jim H wrote:
    I don't buy the*TOTAL* debunking of anything based only on "we can
    never know for sure and thus everything is only belief." This is
    little more than sophistry in my book. The smart money goes with
    widely accepted (among scientists) science as being correct at least
    as far as it goes. There always seems to be more that builds on what
    is already known. Rarely, at least in the last several centuries, does >>> it throw everything we "know" into a cocked hat.
    The problem is deep and you are sweeping it under the carpet, and it
    goes to the heart of all 'knowledge' about the world, because all of it
    is ultimately *models* - inductive propositions that are more or less
    useful. Nowhere in any of it is there the solid testability that allows
    us to call it 'truth'.

    The real point here is not to dismantle ordinary knowledge that works
    pretty well, but to make us aware that ordinary knowledge that works
    pretty well is not the only take we can have on the universe. It is the
    antidote to 'One True Stickiness' that forces people to believe that
    they have it right, and other people have it wrong.

    Is Einstein truth, or just a model? - if truth then how come we believed
    in Newton?

    Newton's gravity did as good a job as could be measured against at the time. The anomaly pointed up by the precession of the axis of Mercury's orbit hadn't
    been noticed yet, and it was a *huge* advance on what went before.

    Remember also that if you simplify Einstein's theory (presumably by setting speed of light to infinity), then AIUI Einstein's theory simplifies down to exactly Newton. So there's no real conflict.

    You are not looking at this from Jim's position. He claims that one or
    the other or both are 'demonstrably true'.

    And it makes a huge difference. Consider climateChange™. We have three hypotheses, let's say:

    (i) Its all just natural variation in a chaotic system. Nothing can or
    need be done except get used to it.
    (ii) It's all man made CO2 so we should shut down civilisation to stop
    it, maybe, in a hundred years.
    (iii) Its down to high flying aircraft contrails, so we should just stop flying.

    Of these the only currently *testable* one is (iii) and when air
    transport did shut down post 911 there were in fact colder nights in the
    USA. And post Covid 19 shutdown there has been a rather cold northern hemisphere winter.

    Yet how many people here would claim that one of these is 'demonstrably
    true'?

    Or the 'science is settled'

    The distinction between a plausible theory, that can't be tested easily
    if at all, and a plausible theory that gives the right answer, and the
    truth, is very, very, wide indeed. When it comes down to a trillion
    dollar industry worldwide.

    In the case of gravity, for most practical purposes at a human level
    scale it doesn't matter. The canard that "gravity is real and
    demonstrably exists in the RealWorld™, just like Newton said" is not a
    lie of serious consequence.

    The problem is that as long as people *think* that science is about establishing 'demonstrable truth' and think in the general case that
    knowledge is 'demonstrable truth' about the world, then the mere naming
    of something by a man from a University, turns the most arrant nonsense
    into 'fact' - especially if he has a white coat on. Or lots of letters
    after his name, and if a collection of men from universities all say the
    same, and so do the computers they have programmed, like the Bandar Log
    in Kipling's Jungle book ("we all say it, so it must be true") why then,
    it's *more* than true, its peer-reviewed 99.7% consensus guaranteed gold
    plated FACT. Isn't it?

    It gets worse.

    From Eugenics to Lysenkoism, and to current theories of the lack of
    importance of e.g. race, we see that theories held to be facts are used politically to justify massive impacts on society. The Nazis used racial superiority to justify genocide, today we use racial equality to
    justify positive discrimination, after all the only reason black people
    don't perform academically as well as white has to be "systemic racism"
    doesn't it?

    Then how come half the top physicists and concert violinists in the
    world are in fact of _Asian_ origin ?

    My gripe is that this lazy thinking that starts in Physics, that
    hypothetical ideas *about* the world are in fact truths *in* the world,
    is not mere sophistry. This is an ingrained habit that results in the
    vast majority of people who are educated enough to know better thinking
    in terms of 'established truths *in* the world' when in fact they may be
    no more than half baked propaganda in their *minds*.

    Korzybski once coined a phrase 'the map is not the territory'. Knowledge
    is maps of the world. If you start regarding it as the territory
    itself, you end up in all sorts of trouble.

    Just because its clearly marked on the map doesn't mean its there on the ground, conversely maps are for specific purposes and what is
    fundamentally as useful as what is on them is what is left off them as
    'too much detail'....

    But going back to Einstein. Its not just a matter of Einstein giving
    slightly better results than Newton, it is a paradigm shift in our
    actual understanding of the whole world.

    Einstein refuted time as a primary axis on the map. Time as a concept
    wasn't what we thought it was. It couldn't be, The idea that even if we couldn't see it and weren't there to hear it, a tree falling on a planet
    in a distant galaxy receding from us at n billion parsecs a second, or whatever, did in fact fall at a given exactly precise-for-all-who-cared
    time post the big bang, flew out of the window.

    Time was relative to the observer.

    Worse, space wasn't flat either. It was bent, depending on what was
    sitting on it.

    Never mind. We still had causality, didn't we?

    Einstein clung on to that one "God does not play dice". And yet
    probability theory fitted the quantum 'facts' as observed, better.

    This has upset so many physicists that a large number declared
    themselves 'instrumentalists' and said that they were not even going to
    argue what was real and what was not, as long as their mathematical
    models gave the right results recorded on their instruments. Shades of
    the Catholic church and Galileo. Never mind reality it's just a
    *mathematical model*.

    My axe to grind is that all this is far far easier to come to terms with
    if, instead of thinking in terms of a reality that is fixed and *out
    there*, we humble ourselves and realise that in fact our realities are
    all mutable and *in here*. Now they may well be, and it's certainly a reasonable hypothesis, to regard them as, more or less accurate *maps*
    of what is 'out there'. Babies and bathwater, but consider the
    possibility that what is actually *out there* is as unknown as the true
    nature of the Matrix, and what you see is in fact just your own minds
    virtual reality simulation...space, time, energy, materiality,
    causality. None of these exist outside of our minds. They are just the
    axes on our own personal maps. Our way of organising and categorising experience into a coherent world-view.

    Today we have conflicts between people who consider that 'truth is
    relative to culture' (which is to my mind a perfectly valid way of
    expressing a something about the way that different cultures draw
    different maps of what is we presume the same reality, but who are not
    astute enough [being students of the humanities] to realise that that
    does not mean that the truth is 'whatever we think it is' and therefore
    by mounting massive propaganda campaigns [political correctness] telling
    us how to think, the underlying reality will in fact change and men will
    become women, just by choosing to think they are], and between those who
    say that, no, magic *doesn't* work, and the world is whatever it is, irrespective of how we think about it, and science reveals it.

    The resolution of that conflict, is as I have described. The halfway
    house between idealism and realism. The metaphysics of Kant,
    Schopenhauer, Korzybski. To regard the *world as we know it* as a
    hierarchy of models, that do indeed reflect the nature of a world as we *presume it really is*, but which are forever inexact, approximate, ad
    hoc and pro tem, and are never *ever* to be regarded as the One True
    Stick. And if someone claims that his ideas are, then he should be hung
    drawn and quartered and his head stuck on a pole.

    I think we desperately need to if not adopt this view, to at least
    understand it. We are being bombarded with fake news and propaganda from
    all sides of every political spectrum there is, for purposes of exacting
    our votes and our wallets. So called 'scientific truths' are rammed into
    our faces to justify massive expenditures and political changes.
    Computer models are held to be more real than the experience of our own
    lives, and the weather has become not what is outside the window, but
    whatever the clever man on the telly says it is.

    In short metaphysics really really matters. It's not 'mere sophistry'
    because it underpins the absolute complete way in which we understand
    the world, and if we are using a worn out and past its sell by date metaphysics, like Materialism, we have no defence against the New
    Idealists, who tell us that pixie dust and Unicorn farts will run the
    world as long as we *believe in theme enough*.

    And remember, in the world of human behaviour, it is as approximately
    true that what people believe in governs their behaviour, as it is approximately true that in the world of classical physics belief has no
    effect whatsoever.



    --
    There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
    that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
    emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent renewable energy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Joe on Thu Jan 14 06:14:35 2021
    On 13/01/2021 21:20, Joe wrote:
    On 12 Jan 2021 19:01:47 GMT
    TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

    On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?

    The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways"
    or "lose" as "loose".


    Almost all problems throughout history have been caused by the ruling
    class, whether they were monarchs or politicians.

    Politicians claim to solve problems, but they are almost always problems
    that were created by other politicians.

    I think they are almost always the problems caused by those very same politicians themselves.

    If you want to get re-elected to e.g. mount a 'war on poverty' it is
    handy if you have created a lot of it first. before handing over the
    reins to the other lot, who you can subsequently blame for it.

    But it is not true to say that ruling classes caused the problems -
    ruling classes are a response to problems, if not a total solution.
    E.g. the Feudal system grew out of an age where primary wealth was
    agriculture. And the primary problem was that the only energy available
    was 'renewable' so that human or animal labour on crops and in managing livestock was the only real source of it, Without surplus food you
    couldn't afford to educate anyone or indeed have anyone doing stuff like
    making metal implements - sloughs and hoes and sickles, let alone the
    armour and swords necessary to defend it from people who discovered that stealing someone else's food is a lot easier than growing your own.
    Social order, some form of effective de facto, if not de jure, slavery,
    and a hierarchy with a warrior class on top and an educated
    priest/scholar class pretty high up, with artisans like metal workers
    being a cut above agricultural workers was a price you had to pay for
    being alive at all.

    Now with abundant fossil and nuclear energy and machines replacing the
    slaves, we all have the luxury of prognosticating over how socially
    unjust it was and congratulating ourselves on having got past it.
    Without realising that it was in fact the optimal solution... yea even
    unto stuffing God notions in there to keep the whole thing stable...for
    the conditions that existed at that time, and that by and large the
    advances that moved us out of it were technological, not religious or political.

    Politics is really about which flavour of the same elite gets to piss on us.

    Never about the real issue which is how much of a ruling elite do we
    really need and can we afford them?

    And how do we in fact get rid of them without putting something equally
    bad in its place (Trump?) or having a civil war...which usually benefits
    no one but the next ruling elite.

    When you look at all the massive examples of gross political change -
    the fall of the Roman empire, the invasion of the Normans, the French revolution, the Russian revolution, the end of apartheid, the
    independence of Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Cuba...what strikes you is how much
    worse the populations were afterwards and often for a long time.

    Politicians manage problems. Technology generally solves them. It wasn't Marxism that eradicated the working class, it was machines and fossil fuel.




    --
    Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
    to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Ahem A Rivet's Shot on Thu Jan 14 06:31:10 2021
    On 13/01/2021 21:13, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
    The faith part in science comes in with the assumption that it is
    possible to construct ever more accurate models because we are modelling something that really does behave predictably. There is no way of knowing that the universe does behave predictably everywhere and at all times, but
    if it doesn't then we can't model it so that is a useful assumption that
    has so far not been invalidated.

    Id put that differently, the faith part of it consists in ascribing
    absolute real objective status to what is in fact a world *view*,
    namely that the world is a picture painted by matter/energy on a canvas
    of flat space time, according to strict laws of Causality and Natural
    Law, all of which can be precisely expressed by linear or in some cases
    non linear partial differential equations.

    This grew out of a pre-enlightenment view that is more or less
    expressible as 'stuff happens, because...' by diminishing the role of
    'spirit' from the 'creator of the material world' to that of 'the
    detached observer' .

    400 years on, give or take, its taken us a long way and people are
    naturally reluctant to abandon it.

    It's never been more than utter crap at explaining how people behave though.


    --
    Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Ahem A Rivet's Shot on Thu Jan 14 06:22:40 2021
    On 13/01/2021 21:16, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
    On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 19:36:58 +0000
    Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:52:16 +0000, in <rtmtug$se9$2@dont-email.me>,
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/01/2021 21:27, Jim H wrote:

    But... but.. but... it's "for the children!!!"

    Believe that, and you will believe anything. :-)

    At the time that phrase was popular, and used seriously, I
    (figuratively of course) grabbed my wallet and backed up against a
    sturdy wall whenever I heard it. Yep, they not only wanted your money,
    but also wanted to "bend you over" too.

    Later it was for the polar bears.

    Not sure what's the latest.

    The rain forests.

    yeah. Embarrassingly polar bears are in greater numbers now than ever
    recorded before.

    In the UK there are more mature trees than there ever have been since
    the end of 'ships of oak', so much so that a lot of diseases that had
    been in abeyance are ripping through them, Same with people :-)

    But I do have two 20 year old elm trees doing well, after all mature
    ones and even young ones were wiped out back in the 70s

    But cutting down rain forests to make space to plant crops for
    'renewable energy' is profitable isn't it?

    Here they cut them down to plant windmills. So they can slice birds in
    half and explode bat lungs.

    Never mind. I am sure they *mean well*. And that's what counts isn't it?

    --
    "First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your oppressors."
    - George Orwell

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Axel Berger@3:770/3 to Charlie Gibbs on Thu Jan 14 08:37:04 2021
    Charlie Gibbs wrote:
    "Orientate" is an example of the trend toward polysyllabificationizing.

    It may just be the influence of the many non-native speakers. "Orient"
    would not be a verb in most other languaguages.


    --
    /\ No | Dipl.-Ing. F. Axel Berger Tel: +49/ 221/ 7771 8067
    \ / HTML | Roald-Amundsen-Strae 2a Fax: +49/ 221/ 7771 8069
    X in | D-50829 Kln-Ossendorf http://berger-odenthal.de
    / \ Mail | -- No unannounced, large, binary attachments, please! --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Kees Nuyt@3:770/3 to tnp@invalid.invalid on Thu Jan 14 09:44:00 2021
    On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 20:16:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 13/01/2021 19:23, Jim H wrote:
    On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:38:06 +0000, in <rtmt3u$m8o$2@dont-email.me>,
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/01/2021 21:08, Jim H wrote:

    [snipped]

    Gentlepeople, can you please take this discussion to a more
    philosofical platform and restrict this group to its topic, comp.sys.raspberry-pi ?

    Thanks in advance !
    --
    Kees Nuyt

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Ahem A Rivet's Shot@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Thu Jan 14 10:26:59 2021
    On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 05:48:16 +0000
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    (iii) Its down to high flying aircraft contrails, so we should just stop flying.

    Of these the only currently *testable* one is (iii) and when air
    transport did shut down post 911 there were in fact colder nights in the
    USA. And post Covid 19 shutdown there has been a rather cold northern hemisphere winter.

    I've seen comments that during the 911 flight shutdown the average temperature over the US rose a little. I have no reason to doubt either
    that observation or yours, it is just an indication of how difficult it is
    to test even that hypothesis - let alone ones like "It's a mix of i and ii proportions unknown". Personally I don't believe anything that ascribes a single cause to a complex phenomenon because I ain't seen one yet.

    --
    Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
    The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
    You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Ahem A Rivet's Shot on Thu Jan 14 11:27:43 2021
    On 14/01/2021 10:26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
    On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 05:48:16 +0000
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    (iii) Its down to high flying aircraft contrails, so we should just stop
    flying.

    Of these the only currently *testable* one is (iii) and when air
    transport did shut down post 911 there were in fact colder nights in the
    USA. And post Covid 19 shutdown there has been a rather cold northern
    hemisphere winter.

    I've seen comments that during the 911 flight shutdown the average temperature over the US rose a little. I have no reason to doubt either
    that observation or yours, it is just an indication of how difficult it is
    to test even that hypothesis - let alone ones like "It's a mix of i and ii proportions unknown". Personally I don't believe anything that ascribes a single cause to a complex phenomenon because I ain't seen one yet.

    And it throws into question the whole notion of a 'cause' anyway. When
    you have negative feedback, time delayed, over enough delay paths you
    will get pseudoperiodic variations with no *external* 'cause' at all.

    in short your dynamic system will wobble around some sort of attractor,
    or set of attractors, in a completely chaotic manner. All by itself.

    But anyone not familiar with the depths of chaos mathematics will look
    at it and say 'what is *causing* that'?

    And go looking for a nonexistent driver external to the system.
    Whilst other seek to find 'cycles' of constant frequency in what is a pseudorandom oscillation.



    --
    “It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
    making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
    who pay no price for being wrong.”

    Thomas Sowell

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Martin Gregorie@3:770/3 to Ahem A Rivet's Shot on Thu Jan 14 13:53:37 2021
    On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:26:59 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

    On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 05:48:16 +0000 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    (iii) Its down to high flying aircraft contrails, so we should just
    stop flying.

    Of these the only currently *testable* one is (iii) and when air
    transport did shut down post 911 there were in fact colder nights in
    the USA. And post Covid 19 shutdown there has been a rather cold
    northern hemisphere winter.

    I've seen comments that during the 911 flight shutdown the average temperature over the US rose a little. I have no reason to doubt either
    that observation or yours, it is just an indication of how difficult it
    is to test even that hypothesis - let alone ones like "It's a mix of i
    and ii proportions unknown". Personally I don't believe anything that ascribes a single cause to a complex phenomenon because I ain't seen one
    yet.

    Its quite possible that both are true and that both are due to the same
    cause - the absence of jet transport contrails over the continental USA:

    - daytime temperature rose and the skies looked clearer because there
    were no contrails reflecting sunlight back into space. NOAA reckon that
    average daytime temperatures rose by 3 degrees Fahrenheit during the air
    travel shutdown and many American glider pilots commented, in
    rec.aviation.soaring, on how much clearer the air had been.

    - I assume the same happened at night, but it would work in reverse, with
    the lack of contrails at night allowing the ground to cool more because
    they weren't there to prevent heat from radiating out through the
    atmosphere. I don't remember seeing any comment about this though, or
    seeing any estimate of what the temperature drop was.


    --
    --
    Martin | martin at
    Gregorie | gregorie dot org

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Martin Gregorie on Thu Jan 14 14:32:00 2021
    On 14/01/2021 13:53, Martin Gregorie wrote:
    On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:26:59 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

    On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 05:48:16 +0000 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    (iii) Its down to high flying aircraft contrails, so we should just
    stop flying.

    Of these the only currently *testable* one is (iii) and when air
    transport did shut down post 911 there were in fact colder nights in
    the USA. And post Covid 19 shutdown there has been a rather cold
    northern hemisphere winter.

    I've seen comments that during the 911 flight shutdown the average
    temperature over the US rose a little. I have no reason to doubt either
    that observation or yours, it is just an indication of how difficult it
    is to test even that hypothesis - let alone ones like "It's a mix of i
    and ii proportions unknown". Personally I don't believe anything that
    ascribes a single cause to a complex phenomenon because I ain't seen one
    yet.

    Its quite possible that both are true and that both are due to the same
    cause - the absence of jet transport contrails over the continental USA:

    - daytime temperature rose and the skies looked clearer because there
    were no contrails reflecting sunlight back into space. NOAA reckon that
    average daytime temperatures rose by 3 degrees Fahrenheit during the air
    travel shutdown and many American glider pilots commented, in
    rec.aviation.soaring, on how much clearer the air had been.

    - I assume the same happened at night, but it would work in reverse, with
    the lack of contrails at night allowing the ground to cool more because
    they weren't there to prevent heat from radiating out through the
    atmosphere. I don't remember seeing any comment about this though, or
    seeing any estimate of what the temperature drop was.


    in an effort to get a handle on the net effect I looked at the *average* temperatures in cloudy humid florida and in dry desert sahara on the
    same altitude.

    They were pretty much the same...


    --
    “It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
    intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
    futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
    we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
    power-directed system of thought.”
    Sir Roger Scruton

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)