Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational. It's grammatically incorrect.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Martin.au

1
Actually, as a bunch of us can sail, why do we need an island. Let's just have a boat and be pirates. Arrrr, to Singapore!!!
Interstingly enough (or not), I understand the concepts of sailing and vector addition very well, but have never had the opportunity to try the former. I do the latter pretty much every day. I've been on a boat three times in my life, and two of those were ferries which hardly count.  I grew up two miles from two lakes too.  I was much more interested in playing hockey on the frozen variety than boating in the non-solid version, I guess.

#isitreallymissingfrommylife
#prairiefarmboy

ETA:
As to pirating, my military training might help, but I find nowadays I'm much more attuned to giving my stuff away as opposed to taking it. Maybe we could be pirates who exchange goods and services for their equivalent monetary or barter value in a peaceable interaction, or just be the pirates who deliver shit to people for free. Dave could use the help on his island, if any of the simulations are any guide.

I was thinking of trading professional services (not like the ones Dave finds outside the temple - but things like engineering, scientific, surveying and design skills) for goods. I suspect most of us would suck at literal piracy.
2
Actually, as a bunch of us can sail, why do we need an island. Let's just have a boat and be pirates. Arrrr, to Singapore!!!
3
Dave, are you still going on about your island experiment? Out of curiosity, could you even find water if dropped off in a random landscape?
Yes of course and I'm not just talking about any random landscape. I would propose a landscape like my location in Missouri because it's very easy to work with.

One with a town nearby?
Nope.  You get one shot at loading up with whatever supplies you want - garden seeds, livestock, tools, etc.

Ok. I'll take a nice house, 5 years of supplies, a decent computer and internet.
4
Dave, are you still going on about your island experiment? Out of curiosity, could you even find water if dropped off in a random landscape?
Yes of course and I'm not just talking about any random landscape. I would propose a landscape like my location in Missouri because it's very easy to work with.

One with a town nearby?
5
Dave, are you still going on about your island experiment? Out of curiosity, could you even find water if dropped off in a random landscape?
6
Arts and Entertainment / Black Panther (Spoilers)
I went and saw Black Panther. Liked it a lot. Lots of good stuff in that film.
Acting and dialogue was excellent as expected.
I really, really wanted it to end with T'Challa sitting down with his court and saying "Right. Along with building bridges to other nations in the world, we might also have a look at this whole hereditary monarchy thing and see if that's a sensible system of government.
One weird plot point. Knowing Marvel I expect it was explained, but I missed it, but why did Killmonger work with Klaue, get him the vibranium, then kill him so he could get into Wakanda. It did give us a great Bond style trip to Korea, but I couldn't see why Killmonger didn't just kill him and rock up on Wakanda's doorstep. There is one convoluted explanation that his plan and entrance to Wakanda required T'Challa to fail to capture Klaue, but it's a bit of a stretch.
Best Pun for the movie: This movie has some Tolkien white guys.
7
TBF, he actually said he would need to learn something:

http://talkrational.org/index.php/topic,188.msg160422.html#msg160422
He will still have to figure out what he needs to learn. That may be a challenge for our Davey.

Wait!!

I thought that Dave's system needs grass and herbivores to even get started.  If no grass then no system!!

And if there is grass then why does it matter what kind it is?  No need to get into messy details.
Someone around here is starting to use their Noggin!

WOW!!!

To you someone is "using their Noggin" if they mindlessly repeat marketing slogans?  What people around here say about you being an idiot seems to be spot on!!

Seems that you didn't notice the sarcasm in my post Dave.  The implied 'all low growing (added low growing because Dave will claim that he knows that  trees are different than grass, but not address anything else) green things are the same and none are poisonous or all animals know that they are poisonous bullshit.

Dave, you are an idiot.  But you are an idiot trying out his fleecing strategies on your captive group here. 

To the others in this thread, I hope that you realize that Dave is using you to test market his con games.  Getting answers to questions that the gullible rubes might ask.


Yeah, but:
1) Dave has been dabbling round with this for years without managing to fleece anyone to our knowledge.
2) Dave posting here is relatively harmless. It takes up a good chunk of his time and keeps him out of other mischief.
3) If anyone does decide to "invest" in Dave's ideas, then caveat emptor. Maybe they'll learn something.
8
You people are lazy.  Get up early like I do and READ.

Bullshit Dave. You haven't answered my question. You've answered what happens to animals and other ecosystems under a hypothetical small-scale project, but you refuse to answer what happens in your 'large scale, save the planet, type plan'.
Which is the question I want you to answer.

I'm thinking that your large scale plan requires the wholesale destruction of any ecosystems not compatible with your 'oak savannah' style farm. Refute me.
Dunno.  But let's to get to first base first, ok?


Is this a tacit admission that you didn't in fact answer my question?
If so I accept your non-forthcoming apology for your trolling, time-wasting, lies and slander of laziness.

What's first base supposed to be? Doesn't the core of your whole idea require the implementation of your systems around the world? If so, then the potential ramifications of that idea are "first base".

First base in my opinion should be the back of the envelope calculations, a sketch of the overall concept, and a bit of consideration as to what the effects may be. So far we've seen the back of the envelope (if overly simplistic and making some very heroic assumptions), and your sketch of the overall concept. What we haven't seen is the consideration of the effects. That's what my questions are focussed on. So I'd say they are an essential part of "first base".

Hey Dave. What's this "first base" supposed to be? What issues do you have with my opinion that the back of envelope maths, sketch of overall concept and basic consideration of ramifications would all come under "first base"?
"First Base" to me is getting your head around the fundamentals ... HMG mimicks Nature more closely than conventional ranching ... HMG restores pasture rather than degrading it.    HMG can be implemented anywhere in the world where there are perennial grasses and grazing animals.  The basic principles of HMG are ... Bunch.  Move.  Rest.  The holy grail of HMG is Grass Productivity (happens to be the title of Voisin's book ... Voisin is the granddaddy of HMG).  Up until about a week ago, the highest grass productivity numbers that I had ever heard of was "400 cow day" pasture (equivalent to about 6 tons DM per acre per year) reported by Joel Salatin in one his books ("Salad Bar Beef" I think) ... but last week a Facebook friend in New York state reported 11 tons per acre DM per year. 

It's kinda ridiculous trying to discuss this stuff with people - like Testy for example - who don't even have their heads around these basics, yet they think they know more than me about pretty much everything and they show up several times a day blah blah blah-ing out their asses while saying "Dave is and idiot, Dave is an idiot."

As for wildlife, my proposed 40 acre project in Guyana should not affect wildlife at all.  In fact, since the people will be eating much more domestic animals instead of wild animals, wildlife may rebound (currently it is somewhat depleted ... this wildlife is a perennial problem being reported with all the Wai Wai villages and is one of the key reasons they asked for help in the first place)


So no basic reality check involved in "first base".
I think we can safely remove "saving the world" from your plans now.
9
Buy I DO have my head around "the basics" of all those various fields. 

Not even close.
10
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
Lol.
"Stories that shape us"
Now that's an accurate tagline.
11
You people are lazy.  Get up early like I do and READ.

Bullshit Dave. You haven't answered my question. You've answered what happens to animals and other ecosystems under a hypothetical small-scale project, but you refuse to answer what happens in your 'large scale, save the planet, type plan'.
Which is the question I want you to answer.

I'm thinking that your large scale plan requires the wholesale destruction of any ecosystems not compatible with your 'oak savannah' style farm. Refute me.
Dunno.  But let's to get to first base first, ok?


Is this a tacit admission that you didn't in fact answer my question?
If so I accept your non-forthcoming apology for your trolling, time-wasting, lies and slander of laziness.

What's first base supposed to be? Doesn't the core of your whole idea require the implementation of your systems around the world? If so, then the potential ramifications of that idea are "first base".

First base in my opinion should be the back of the envelope calculations, a sketch of the overall concept, and a bit of consideration as to what the effects may be. So far we've seen the back of the envelope (if overly simplistic and making some very heroic assumptions), and your sketch of the overall concept. What we haven't seen is the consideration of the effects. That's what my questions are focussed on. So I'd say they are an essential part of "first base".

Hey Dave. What's this "first base" supposed to be? What issues do you have with my opinion that the back of envelope maths, sketch of overall concept and basic consideration of ramifications would all come under "first base"?
12
You people are lazy.  Get up early like I do and READ.

Bullshit Dave. You haven't answered my question. You've answered what happens to animals and other ecosystems under a hypothetical small-scale project, but you refuse to answer what happens in your 'large scale, save the planet, type plan'.
Which is the question I want you to answer.

I'm thinking that your large scale plan requires the wholesale destruction of any ecosystems not compatible with your 'oak savannah' style farm. Refute me.
Dunno.  But let's to get to first base first, ok?


Is this a tacit admission that you didn't in fact answer my question?
If so I accept your non-forthcoming apology for your trolling, time-wasting, lies and slander of laziness.

What's first base supposed to be? Doesn't the core of your whole idea require the implementation of your systems around the world? If so, then the potential ramifications of that idea are "first base".

First base in my opinion should be the back of the envelope calculations, a sketch of the overall concept, and a bit of consideration as to what the effects may be. So far we've seen the back of the envelope (if overly simplistic and making some very heroic assumptions), and your sketch of the overall concept. What we haven't seen is the consideration of the effects. That's what my questions are focussed on. So I'd say they are an essential part of "first base".
13
You people are lazy.  Get up early like I do and READ.

Bullshit Dave. You haven't answered my question. You've answered what happens to animals and other ecosystems under a hypothetical small-scale project, but you refuse to answer what happens in your 'large scale, save the planet, type plan'.
Which is the question I want you to answer.

I'm thinking that your large scale plan requires the wholesale destruction of any ecosystems not compatible with your 'oak savannah' style farm. Refute me.
14
That was not my answer.  Keep looking.

Well, seeing as Dave refuses to answer, and refuses to link to his previous "answer", I think we can safely assume that Dave's grand plan requires the destruction of most of the existing ecosystems on earth. and the replacement of them with "oak savannah" style farmland.

So the answer as to where lions and tigers and bears live is .............nowhere.
You're wrong. Keep looking.


No Dave. Stop being such a chickenshit. Link to it.
Find it yourself.  Try to keep up. Why do you care anyway? 

Afdave's Third Law: If you have an objection to any point I've raised, I've already addressed it. No, I won't tell you where.
15
That was not my answer.  Keep looking.

Well, seeing as Dave refuses to answer, and refuses to link to his previous "answer", I think we can safely assume that Dave's grand plan requires the destruction of most of the existing ecosystems on earth. and the replacement of them with "oak savannah" style farmland.

So the answer as to where lions and tigers and bears live is .............nowhere.
You're wrong. Keep looking.


No Dave. Stop being such a chickenshit. Link to it.
16
That was not my answer.  Keep looking.

Well, seeing as Dave refuses to answer, and refuses to link to his previous "answer", I think we can safely assume that Dave's grand plan requires the destruction of most of the existing ecosystems on earth. and the replacement of them with "oak savannah" style farmland.

So the answer as to where lions and tigers and bears live is .............nowhere.
17
Dave. Nobody cares about your "trials", or these small scale projects you imagine you'll do one day.

Your plan to save the world requires that your ideas be scaled up and implemented pretty well everywhere, yes? (eg: Your maths).
What we want to know is under this long term plan of yours, what happens to the lions and tigers and bears.

You can't say that your work is too minor in scale to affect wildlife populations, and then argue that it should be applied everywhere.
That's not a logical leap.

If your plan is to have a few acres in Missouri and a few in Guyana, then nobody is really going to care about your impact on ecosystems.
But that's not your plan is it? eg: " I would advocate for this general configuration everywhere on earth that it's possible" - Dave.
So the question is what happens to the existing ecosystems under that plan?
And that seems to be a question you really don't want to answer.

Dave?
I answered this.  If you can't keep up, go back and review.


Dave?

Thanks! JonF, for documenting Dave's lack of an answer.
18
Dave. Nobody cares about your "trials", or these small scale projects you imagine you'll do one day.

Your plan to save the world requires that your ideas be scaled up and implemented pretty well everywhere, yes? (eg: Your maths).
What we want to know is under this long term plan of yours, what happens to the lions and tigers and bears.

You can't say that your work is too minor in scale to affect wildlife populations, and then argue that it should be applied everywhere.
That's not a logical leap.

If your plan is to have a few acres in Missouri and a few in Guyana, then nobody is really going to care about your impact on ecosystems.
But that's not your plan is it? eg: " I would advocate for this general configuration everywhere on earth that it's possible" - Dave.
So the question is what happens to the existing ecosystems under that plan?
And that seems to be a question you really don't want to answer.

Dave?
19
7 is an int though.
Dave prefers floats. Sometimes very floaty floats.
21
Quote
Why wouldn't you use a 40 acre plot that they've already cut and abandoned?
Sure if fertility is enough to establish grasses. 
Quote
And, if you cut 40 out of a million, probably not. But for sure they won't live on that 40 acres.
  True, but remember I'm not planning on clear cutting vast swaths like the conventional cattle ranchers are doing.  I'm suggesting small plots dotted like patchwork in the existing rainforest so I don't know why the wildlife would not still have plenty of habitat.
Well that's a new one. Or is this perhaps describing your "small scale" project, rather than your "save the world" plan?
Quote
Are the wai wai lactose tolerant?
No idea, but I doubt it.  You guys have drunk some weird Koolaid on that issue.
O RLY. Explain why? You don't see a small problem with a heavy milk diet for people that can't drink milk?
22
"In the past, the Wai Wai people in Kanashen periodically changed the location of their villages. This reflects the agro-practice of shifting cultivation in which an area in the forest is cleared, occupied and cultivated for a period before its inhabitants move on to another area. This practice facilitates habitat and soil rejuvenation in the fragile ecosystem of a tropical rainforest."

Interesting quote from Wiki which suggests Dave's explanation of their agricultural practices may be a bit..........."cultured".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanashen
23
Dave. Nobody cares about your "trials", or these small scale projects you imagine you'll do one day.

Your plan to save the world requires that your ideas be scaled up and implemented pretty well everywhere, yes? (eg: Your maths).
What we want to know is under this long term plan of yours, what happens to the lions and tigers and bears.

You can't say that your work is too minor in scale to affect wildlife populations, and then argue that it should be applied everywhere.
That's not a logical leap.

If your plan is to have a few acres in Missouri and a few in Guyana, then nobody is really going to care about your impact on ecosystems.
But that's not your plan is it? eg: " I would advocate for this general configuration everywhere on earth that it's possible" - Dave.
So the question is what happens to the existing ecosystems under that plan?
And that seems to be a question you really don't want to answer.
24
And yes that probably needs limits to population size of humans.
This is new.
What kind of limits?
In the past, you have talked of 100 - 200 billion.
Have you had occasion to rethink that?

And what sorts of mechanisms do you envision implementing your preferred limits?

Hopefully not like his grand plan to establish a singular, master, ecosystem.
25
Jesus Christ you people are idiots.

The hard cold reality I'm talking about as the actual effing numbers of actual effing pasture land and crop land and forested land.

And we're talking about the ramifications of those numbers.
And how you're failing to deal with those ramifications.
And how you're trying to talk your way around the problems without resolving them.
Like where do tigers live?


And, as a different topic, the hard, cold, reality you're ignoring when you choose and apply those numbers.

But I'm most interested in where you plan to have tigers (and lots of other animals).
You are probably smart enough to answer this question yourself.

Well, based on what you've said about your grand plan, I suspect that the answer is no-where. Feel free to clarify.