Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: The energy upon the mass

Recent Posts

21
Absolute 100% truth is an ideal that we should strive for. Obviously no one can achieve it perfectly. But certainly all of us could do better. And no it doesn't just belong in religion. It belongs everywhere. That's part of the problem with people these days I think is they say oh yeah that's for those other people but not for me.
And who can judge what is closer to the ideal? Truth is not one-dimensional. If one approximation is broader but another is deeper and another lasts longer, which one is closer?

In the end we can do only one thing, make predictions and test them.
22
Lol

Quote
The left-wing conspiracy theory that the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russian officials ahead of the 2016 presidential campaign continued to crash and burn Friday, with Robert Mueller's indictment showing the foreign nationals began meddling in US politics one year before Donald Trump announced his run for office.

https://www.hannity.com/media-room/collusion-collapse-mueller-says-russian-meddling-began-before-trumps-candidacy/amp/



Almost exactly a year after the above tweet: "Woman Who Helped Organize Miss Universe in 2013 Announced Trump's Presidential Run in January, 2015"

Go ahead and put your high-speed mind to work on the possible implications.
On a side note: I talk with many people from Russia and other former USSR countries at work. They often can't speak Greek and I don't speak Russian, so we discuss in English.

I've NEVER heard anyone do the pseudo-stereotypical "no articles" accent. It just doesn't occur.

Why the hell is that woman tweeting that way?
I semi-regularly interact with Russian immigrants here and I've heard it a lot from the ones with weak English.
23
Whoops. That was supposed to be an eta in my last post.
Dave still won't read it even though you spoon-fed it to him, but I appreciated it.
24
Don't you know what the word "unwitting" means?
Here's my theory. The Russians chose Trump as a unwitting tool because they thought he would damage America. A lot of damage would be done by just having him run. Whatever works to have Americans fighting Americans instead of Putin is good. More damage would be done if he would win, so they tried to help make this come about. With "fake news", an army of idiots, and some bots, on social media, wannabe Nazis and some paid help from within the campaign. No collusion from Trump himself required.

America is better of without an unwitting fool as the highest public servant. He needs to go.

One thing that makes me think that he's guilty of more than being an idiot, is that he's acting very, very guilty, with the persistent efforts to obstruct justice.
Yeah. That plus there's pretty clear evidence of over a decade of money laundering of russian/satellite cash using his property business.
25
Whoops. That was supposed to be an eta in my last post.
26
Our traditional view of natural systems, therefore, might well be less a meaningful reality than a perceptual convenience. There can in some years be more owls and fewer mice and in others, the reverse. Fish populations wax and wane as a natural condition, and insect populations can range over extremes that only logarithmic transformations can easily illustrate. Moreover, over distinct areas, during long or short periods of time, species can completely disappear and then reappear. Different and useful insight might be obtained, therefore, by viewing the behavior of ecological systems in terms of the probability of extinction of their elements, and by shifting emphasis from the equilibrium states to the conditions for persistence.
An equilibrium centered view is essentially static and provides little insight into the transient behavior of systems that are not near the equilibrium. Natural, undis-
turbed systems are likely to be continually in a transient state; they will be equally so under the influence of man. As man's numbers and economic demands increase, his use of resources shifts equilibrium states and moves populations away from equilibria. The present concerns for pollution and endangered species are specific
signals that the well-being of the world is not adequately described by concentrating on equilibria and conditions near them. Moreover, strategies based upon these two
different views of the world might well be antagonistic. It is at least conceivable that the effective and responsible effort to provide a maximum sustained yield from a fish
population or a nonfluctuating supply of water from a watershed (both equilibrium-centered views) might paradoxically increase the chance for extinctions.
~C.S. Holling
27
Individuals die, populations disappear, and species become extinct. That is one view of the world. But another view of the world concentrates not so much on presence or absence as upon the numbers of organisms and the degree of constancy of their numbers. These are two very different ways of viewing the behavior of systems and the usefulness of the view depends very much on the properties of the system concerned. If we are examining a particular device designed by the engineer to perform specific tasks under a rather narrow range of predictable external conditions, we are likely to be more concerned with consistent nonvariable performance in which slight departures from the performance goal are immediately counteracted.
A quantitative view of the behavior of the system is, therefore, essential. With attention focused upon achieving constancy, the critical events seem to be the amplitude and frequency of oscillations. But if we are dealing with a system profoundly affected by changes external to it, and continually confronted by the unexpected, the constancy of its behavior becomes less important than the persistence of the relationships. Attention shifts, therefore, to the qualitative and to questions of existence or not.
Our traditions of analysis in theoretical and empirical ecology have been largely inherited from developments in classical physics and its applied variants. Inevitably, there has been a tendency to emphasize the quantitative rather than the qualitative, for it is important in this tradition to know not just that a quantity is larger than another quantity, but precisely how much larger. It is similarly important, if a quantity fluctuates, to know its amplitude and period of fluctuation. But this orientation may simply reflect an analytic approach developed in one area because it was
useful and then transferred to another where it may not be.
28
Then you missed the key line.
Quote
that an ecosystem is dynamic and the implications of that are for managing natural resources (which is what a farm does).

To me, your view only works if you consider your farms as fundamentally static things. No plagues, no slow shifts, no real change whatsoever. You miss out on all the dynamics necessary in understanding ecosystems. Which is what Testy's resource apparently talks about.
Well yes.  Farms ARE fundamentally static things.  Or should be.  Massive changes that I am aware of (within the last 2000 years) are the result of man's activities, not Mother Nature's.

Ecosystems are multilevel, Dave.
29
Now that I think about it, Dave,  you are right that there's no real reason for you to read anything I might think you would enjoy.
30
Dave plain and simple hasn't gathered enough information regarding any kind of ecology to do other than make an unwitting fool of himself with his pronouncements.

He has no idea how small some biomes are, or about how they interact. He doesn't have a clue what might be important. Regarding the tropical rainforest, his notion of creating broad alleys or cutting the canopy by 50% is a real extinction booster. Countless creatures live in the canopy, and many only survive to eat and mate because there is a continuous canopy to travel and hunt through. Breaks in that canopy that can't be traversed or easily circled around can be species killers. There are plants, frogs, insects, lizards, etc. that only exist in small, very specific environments, so small that many have already been eliminated by deforestation. Dave's plan would cause more extinctions by destroying some of those small reservoirs.

He doesn't understand species interactions, either - that losing some insect or bird might interrupt a cycle that some plant or tree depends on for reproduction, or losing some ant species might eliminate a crucial food source.

What is maddening, and worrying, is that he THINKS he understands this - that he is way ahead of us. He knows about keystone species - he's full of the wolves and Yellowstone.  He just can't apply the principle to anything other than his idiotic contention that his cage is substitute for wolves.  He doesn't even seem to understand that a species that is a "keystone" in one ecosystem may be devastate another.

Or that an insect, or a plant, might be a "keystone".  Or that there may be no single keystones but an interdependent web.

Or that ecosystems are dynamic, not static, and that their capacity to respond dynamically is one of the factors that confers robustness.

He's trapped in a mirror bubble of his own narcissistic ignorance.