From: Neil Harrington on
DRS wrote:
> "D. Peter Maus" <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:h9dgcv$kem$1(a)news.eternal-september.org
>> On 9/23/09 10:01 , Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> 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.
>
> That's called "biased assimilation" and everybody does regardless of
> political persuasion.
>
>> I hear a lot from the Right that says 'This doesn't
>> work....because....' And then there are a lot of facts that explain
>> why something will not work.
>
> There is no group in America more prone to shrill, fact-free
> emotionalism than the Right.

Only in the view of a confirmed, doctrinaire leftist -- who typically sees
any well-reasoned conservative argument as "shrill" though he never makes
that association with the enraged screechings of his fellow leftists.

> Michael Lind wrote an interesting
> article at Salon.com the other day on the original neoconservatives,

Did he mention in it that "the original neoconservatives" were liberals,
sometimes radical leftists, who for one reason or another became
disenchanted with an existing flavor of leftism?

> of whom he was one, in which he describes how the term and the
> movement was hijacked by the wingnuts and turned into something
> utterly devoid of intellectual rigour.

Neoconservatives frequently pose as conservatives, and some of them
(Horowitz et al.) actually have become conservatives of a sort. But the idea
of a neoconservative "movement" being "hijacked" by someone else is
ridiculous. Neocons are what they are, and no one who isn't one is likely to
want to be mistaken for one.


From: Neil Harrington on
Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital D. Peter Maus <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:

>
>> 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.

That's the story as I always heard it too, "insufficient wing area to fly."

But the idea that "SCIENCE said" that is something I'm very skeptical about.
What sort of science could possibly arrive at such a conclusion?

In the first and most obvious place, a bumblebee is in no way comparable to
a fixed wing aircraft. What it is comparable to is an ornithopter, and I
don't think anyone ever built an ornithopter that could actually fly, so
that's a kind of aircraft that you wouldn't expect there to be enough
scientific data on to arrive at any conclusions about bumblebees.

> 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.

How do you establish the "effective dihedral" of wings that are beating at
such an incredibly fast rate, though? I don't believe dihedral has anything
to do with it. Even if you could calculate the AVERAGE dihedral of a
bumblebee's wings, you'd still have to establish the incidence in order for
it to mean anything. Dihedral produces lateral stability only because (or
if) the wing also has positive incidence.

> 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.

That's interesting.

I'd still like to know where the original "insufficient wing area" story got
started, though. Absent some proof of a serious scientific analysis in the
past claiming that, I'm inclined to believe it may be more of an urban myth.
It's a popular one anyway, and will probably go on forever -- like the
widely held belief that before Columbus everyone thought the earth was flat.


From: Ray Fischer on
Neil Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>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.
>
>All the evidence and facts are on the pro-gun side of the argument, Chris.

That explains the positive correleation between gun availablility and
gun deaths?

What flavor was your KoolAid?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Ray Fischer on
Neil Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>DRS wrote:
>> "D. Peter Maus" <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:h9dgcv$kem$1(a)news.eternal-september.org
>>> On 9/23/09 10:01 , Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> That's called "biased assimilation" and everybody does regardless of
>> political persuasion.
>>
>>> I hear a lot from the Right that says 'This doesn't
>>> work....because....' And then there are a lot of facts that explain
>>> why something will not work.
>>
>> There is no group in America more prone to shrill, fact-free
>> emotionalism than the Right.
>
-Only in the view of a confirmed, doctrinaire leftist --

Q.E.D. Anyone who criticizes right-wing extremism is a "doctrinaire
leftist". Never mind the screaming, racist, bigoted demonstrations
against Obama. Never mind the threats of violence.

>> Michael Lind wrote an interesting
>> article at Salon.com the other day on the original neoconservatives,
>
>Did he mention in it that "the original neoconservatives" were liberals,

Conservative liberals?

Smirk.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: tony cooper on
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:50:07 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>news:oOmdneO8vOH6piPXnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>> D. Peter Maus 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.
>>>>
I think I unknowingly managed to take a photograph of you last week:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/651841603_9fsaJ-L.jpg


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida