From: J. Clarke on
D. Peter Maus wrote:
> On 9/23/09 13:51 , Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital D. Peter Maus<DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net>
>> wrote:
>>> On 9/23/09 10:01 , Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>>> In rec.photo.digital Bill Graham<weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against
>>>>> carrying guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these
>>>>> laws, and so only the criminals will carry guns, and the crime
>>>>> rate will go up. When you allow everyone to carry guns, some
>>>>> percentage of the honest people will do so, and this is bad news
>>>>> for the criminals, and the crime rates will go down. Or. at
>>>>> least, the criminals will go elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>>> Why the hell the stupid liberals can't see and understand this is
>>>>> beyond me, but they can't, and haven't been able to for all of my
>>>>> life.
>>>>
>>>> It's the evidence, Bill. What those stupid liberals consider is the
>>>> evidence. What the stupid fools don't realise is that if you take
>>>> facts seriously you might have to change your mind about some
>>>> things. That's why if you know you're right it's so important to
>>>> ignore facts. But liberals are too stupid to realise that.
>>
>>> It's not a matter of stupidity, Chris. In fact, many liberals
>>> are among the brightest. But rather, it's a matter of selective and
>>> adaptive hearing that morph or redefine facts into conveniently
>>> ignored limitations. Limitations to be blown past by the elite,
>>> educated, and those privileged by their positions on core issues.
>>
>> I agree with your explanation about how sophisticated reasoners spin
>> the presentation of selective facts to persuade the gullible of a
>> desired point of view. It's now seems to have become generally
>> accepted by all political parties and large corporations that instead
>> of telling the public uncomfortable truths they should invent
>> plausible stories which justify what they think they should do.
>
>
> I remember a staff meeting at CBS where we were told that there
> are no experts, and that our position, once chosen is to be 'the
> truth.'
>
> And we spent the next several hours defining what 'truth' would be.
>
>
>
>> People
>> who are good at spinning plausible justifications for hidden agendas
>> are now so valuable that they command very high salaries indeed.
>
>
> No kidding.
>
>
>>
>> But I must correct your mistaken explanation of the hoary old
>> "scientists say the bumblebee can't fly".
>>
>>> Now, here's the fact.
>>
>>> No one has ever said that the bumblebee can't fly. Clearly it
>>> can, it happens every day. Science has never been so blind as to
>>> make such a claim. But what Science HAS said, is that the bumblebee
>>> is UNSTABLE in flight, an aerodynamically unsound design. This
>>> doesn't mean or even imply that it can't fly. Just that there would
>>> be easier and better ways to achieve flight.
>>
>> Not so. What science said until recently was simply that according to
>> our understanding of fixed wing aeroplane flight the bumblebee had
>> insufficient wing area to fly. Not that it was unstable. It is in
>> fact unusually stable in flight due to its relatively low centre of
>> gravity and large effective dihedral. The problem was that
>> theoretically the wings weren't large enough to do the job they
>> clearly were doing. So something was wrong with a simplified
>> analysis of bee flight based on fixed wing aerodynamics.
>
> Fair enough. I never heard anything growing up but that the
> bumblebee was unstable. Nor in Physics, either, for that matter. But
> this may be a distinction without a difference. The point still
> stands, that no one ever said that the bumblebee can't fly. Only
> that it was unstable, or, in the case you cite, that the current
> understanding of aerodynamic theory didn't support flight. Clearly,
> reality speaks and spoke a different volume.

Actually what was said was something to the effect of "gee, whiz, in the
morning when I'm sober if I can find this napkin again and remember why I
have it I'll have to figure out what I did wrong". The particular incident
in which the assertion was allegedly made was at a dinner party where an
aerodynamicist with a certain amount of alcohol in him in response to a
question from a biologist tried to work it out on a napkin and came up with
an answer that was clearly wrong.

> Either way, the point still stands that it was recognized that
> the bumblebee could fly. And it was equally understood that it could
> fly without breaking the laws of Physics. There was simply, as you
> state:
>
>
>>
>> In the 1990s the important missing factor was discovered -- the
>> trailing edge vortices which are such an important source of lift
>> loss in fixed wing aerodynamics were exploited to add lift in the
>> flight of many insects. In the 2000s high speed cinematography and
>> mechanical simulations of bee wing motion demonstrated in practical
>> detail that this was in fact what the bee was doing.
>
>
> Have you gotten to see those images? If you can, track them down.
> They're amazing. It will give you a new respect for so-called 'lower
> forms.'

From: Chris Malcolm on
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:

> I have seen the creeping socialism
> all of my life. And yes, it has crept just as much during the Republican
> administrations as it has during the Democratic ones.....Until this year,
> and then it is moving forward by leaps and bounds.

This sounds like the terminal phase of AGCS (Age Related Creeping
Socialism). The cerebral inflammation is exacerbated by watching TV
news and current affairs programmes, especially if alcohol or coffee
are consumed at the same time.

--
Chris Malcolm
From: Savageduck on
On 2009-09-23 15:43:20 -0700, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> said:

> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I have seen the creeping socialism
>> all of my life. And yes, it has crept just as much during the Republican
>> administrations as it has during the Democratic ones.....Until this year,
>> and then it is moving forward by leaps and bounds.
>
> This sounds like the terminal phase of AGCS (Age Related Creeping
> Socialism). The cerebral inflammation is exacerbated by watching TV
> news and current affairs programmes, especially if alcohol or coffee
> are consumed at the same time.

I think you have reached a logical and accurate diagnosis.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Bill Graham on

"Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7huri3F2vbq1hU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> In rec.photo.digital Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against carrying
>> guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these laws, and so only the
>> criminals will carry guns, and the crime rate will go up. When you allow
>> everyone to carry guns, some percentage of the honest people will do so,
>> and
>> this is bad news for the criminals, and the crime rates will go down. Or.
>> at
>> least, the criminals will go elsewhere.
>
>> Why the hell the stupid liberals can't see and understand this is beyond
>> me,
>> but they can't, and haven't been able to for all of my life.
>
> It's the evidence, Bill. What those stupid liberals consider is the
> evidence. What the stupid fools don't realise is that if you take
> facts seriously you might have to change your mind about some
> things. That's why if you know you're right it's so important to
> ignore facts. But liberals are too stupid to realise that.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm

The evidence varies greatly from place to place, and depends on lots of
other things, such as general level of poverty, proliferation of drugs, and
population density. I notice that the liberals will frantically search
around for some town whose statistics show fewer people killed by gunshots,
and are quick to point this out. But they always fail to look at any other
factors. Like how many of those killed deserved to be killed (for one
thing).....IOW, they will be quick to lump all the deaths together and call
them all "bad". And the other factors that I mentioned above will be lost on
them, too. The only fair way is to look at someplace where the laws against
guns have changed, and few or none of the other factors have changed, and
then compare the change in statistics after that point. When you do this,
you will see that lifting a ban on guns results in a decrease in crime, but
an increase in accidental gun deaths. This is quite reasonable, to me, and
it follows logic.

From: Bill Graham on

"Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7hv91gF2u63fvU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> In rec.photo.digital D. Peter Maus <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> On 9/23/09 10:01 , Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>> In rec.photo.digital Bill Graham<weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against
>>>> carrying
>>>> guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these laws, and so only
>>>> the
>>>> criminals will carry guns, and the crime rate will go up. When you
>>>> allow
>>>> everyone to carry guns, some percentage of the honest people will do
>>>> so, and
>>>> this is bad news for the criminals, and the crime rates will go down.
>>>> Or. at
>>>> least, the criminals will go elsewhere.
>>>
>>>> Why the hell the stupid liberals can't see and understand this is
>>>> beyond me,
>>>> but they can't, and haven't been able to for all of my life.
>>>
>>> It's the evidence, Bill. What those stupid liberals consider is the
>>> evidence. What the stupid fools don't realise is that if you take
>>> facts seriously you might have to change your mind about some
>>> things. That's why if you know you're right it's so important to
>>> ignore facts. But liberals are too stupid to realise that.
>
>> It's not a matter of stupidity, Chris. In fact, many liberals are
>> among the brightest. But rather, it's a matter of selective and
>> adaptive hearing that morph or redefine facts into conveniently
>> ignored limitations. Limitations to be blown past by the elite,
>> educated, and those privileged by their positions on core issues.
>
> I agree with your explanation about how sophisticated reasoners spin
> the presentation of selective facts to persuade the gullible of a
> desired point of view. It's now seems to have become generally
> accepted by all political parties and large corporations that instead
> of telling the public uncomfortable truths they should invent
> plausible stories which justify what they think they should do. People
> who are good at spinning plausible justifications for hidden agendas
> are now so valuable that they command very high salaries indeed.
>
> But I must correct your mistaken explanation of the hoary old
> "scientists say the bumblebee can't fly".
>
>> Now, here's the fact.
>
>> No one has ever said that the bumblebee can't fly. Clearly it
>> can, it happens every day. Science has never been so blind as to
>> make such a claim. But what Science HAS said, is that the bumblebee
>> is UNSTABLE in flight, an aerodynamically unsound design. This
>> doesn't mean or even imply that it can't fly. Just that there would
>> be easier and better ways to achieve flight.
>
> Not so. What science said until recently was simply that according to
> our understanding of fixed wing aeroplane flight the bumblebee had
> insufficient wing area to fly. Not that it was unstable. It is in fact
> unusually stable in flight due to its relatively low centre of gravity
> and large effective dihedral. The problem was that theoretically the
> wings weren't large enough to do the job they clearly were doing. So
> something was wrong with a simplified analysis of bee flight based on
> fixed wing aerodynamics.
>
> In the 1990s the important missing factor was discovered -- the
> trailing edge vortices which are such an important source of lift loss
> in fixed wing aerodynamics were exploited to add lift in the flight of
> many insects. In the 2000s high speed cinematography and mechanical
> simulations of bee wing motion demonstrated in practical detail that
> this was in fact what the bee was doing.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm

I have nothing against working to find the theory that brings it all
together.....After all, I am a math major. But the important thing to
remember is that the bee does fly. Unless one is prone to believe in magic,
one has to know that there must exist a sound physical basis for that fact.