DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Geopolitics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 493--------------------------------------------------
The F-35 is TOO DANGEROUS for Burlington, Vermont
By: AGelbert Date: December 3, 2013, 8:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-015.gifThe<br
/>F35
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1593.gif
The F35 isn't simply horrendously noisy; it is even more
horrendously dangerous. No, the danger isn't for the pilot; it's
for the people that live beneath flight path.
WHY?
Because the pentagon has had a slight "problem" with fighter
aircraft that they can never seem to get over. They made the
same costly mistake with the P38 Lightning, P47 Thundebolt, F105
fighter/bomber, F4 phantom, F104 Starfighter and a few others.
IOW, the NORM for our MIC is to churn out a unresponsive DOGS.
The successful fighters have been the P51 Mustang, F86 Saber Jet
and the F14 Tomcat. The F18 hornet that replaced the F14 is
cheaper but has never actually been proven superior in a to dog
fight with a Russian, European or Chinese equivalent fighter
versions.
The P51 outflew the Messerschmitt 109s that were faster but less
maneuverable.
The Japanese ZERO flew rings around the F6F Hellcats we had in
the pacific. We won there because we had more stuff, not because
we had better stuff.
The F86 had a kill ration of 11 to one over the Mig 15 it fought
with in he Korean War. No fighter aircraft before or since has
bested the F86 Saber Jet.
The F14, Tomcat, despite it being rather heavy, had a high
survival rate in Vietnam because it had two engines and could
usually limp back to the carrier as well as do slightly over 1
to 1 with the Russian fighters of that epoch. The Mig 21 and Mig
23 were, in many ways, as good as anything we had then,
Why did/DOES the MIC make lousy fighters?
Because it is always trying to reach what is known as a multiple
role war bird. This never works because ONE role (e.g. Ground
attack) ALWAYS compromises the performance characteristics need
for the other roles (high altitude intercept and high altitude
bombing).
The F104 was designed to fly high and fast and shoot a few on
board missles from a long distance. It can't maneuver. So it was
useless in Vietnam.
The F105 was a "compromise" between a fighter and a bomber. It
could carry a lot of bombs but could not really maneuver.
Calling it a fighter was done in a fit of imagination. In Viet
Nam, they were affectionately called LEAD SLEDS by their pilots.
They got shot down regularly by missiles and were dead meat if a
Mig got a hold of them. The F4 phantom was also too heavy and
dangerous to land on carriers. The F14, with its swing wings,
made carrier landing deaths mostly a thing of the past. The F4
couldn't hold its own against Migs either.
The F-16 supposedly took care of a lot of this stuff because it
is a pure fighter (light maneuverable and fast) but it can't
carry much weight for bombing and is too hot for accurate ground
attack (both of these type roles have been tried unsuccessfully
by the Israelis for the F-16 and they have come out looking like
idiots - yeah, they destroyed buildings but they couldn't
protect Israeli Troops from Hezbollah).
But the MIC keeps trying to get an airplane that can "do it
all". And instead of saying, well, that's silly. We will have a
heavily armored, slow, ground attack aircraft capable of taking
a beating, a bomber that can bomb anything from way up there out
of ground fire range with ECM countermeasures for missiles and
some stealth thrown in and we will escort the bomber with
fighters that are as nimble as rocket powered mosquitos.
No, the B2s are too few. They want a fighter, bomber and a
HARRIER CLONE TOO!
On top of screwing up the design (decreased maneuverability
throughout the flight envelope and greater vulnerability near
the ground) with a lot of added weight from a huge engine needed
for large armament loads from missiles to bombs to bullets, the
engine had to be EVEN BIGGER and HEAVIER. THAT is why the F-35
is SO NOISY.
They have made a modern day version of the P-47 Thunderbolt.
That DOG had such a hoge engine that they ground looped on
takeoff regularly because the pilot applied full power before he
had enough rudder to counteract torque. They were fast but had
the glide path of a rock if the single huge engine failed.
But they crowning folly is wanting a vertical take off and
landing fighter aircraft (VTOL). The marines loved the English
Harrier Jet because it could hide out in the woods with the
troops and help with ground attack. So the pentagon was asked
for an American version.
Right, ANOTHER role for an already overtasked aircraft. Which
brings me back to Burlington, Vermont.
Those F-35 pilots are going to be REQUIRED to perform VTOL
exercises regularly. Yes, the plane has all kinds of computers
taking care of the aircraft pitch and bank during these
maneuvers but all that goes to HELL when the engine fails.
Right now, if an F-16 flying along at 160 mph plus on final to
the normal approach path to Burlington (flying Southeast some
mile northwest of the airport), they can put it into the
Winooski river and eject just before impact (nobody gets
killed).
HOWEVER, if they are doing a VTOL exercise a hundred feet or so
over the airport and the engine or the computer fails, it WON'T
just drop straight down; it will try to vector this way or that
and end up on top of a house next to the airport. When you are
at nearly zero forward speed, you aren't just a wingless ROCK,
you are a computer controlled loose cannon.
The F-35 will kill people in Vermont. I hope the people of
Vermont voice their OUTRAGE against this death machine enough
NOW before Senator Leahy has to retire in INFAMY.
[b][i]NOT COOL,[/I] highly dangerous, SINGLE ENGINE VTOL
planes[/B]
[embed=640,380]
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwMvEjhoMWU#[/embed]<br
/>
[img WIDTH=200
height=200]
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-015.gif[/img]<br
/>[img WIDTH=200
height=200]
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1593.gif[/img]
#Post#: 563--------------------------------------------------
Re: Power Structures in Human Society: Pros and Cons Part 1
By: AGelbert Date: December 16, 2013, 5:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sanders Applauds Pope Francis’ Call to Rein in the Tyranny of
Capitalism
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
BURLINGTON, Vt., Nov. 26, 2013 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
today applauded Pope Francis’ recent papal pronouncement, which
condemns the “new tyranny” of unrestrained capitalism, causing
income inequality and poverty, and calling on leaders to curb
“the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial
speculation,” and act “for the common good.”
In his first independently written apostolic exhortation called
“Evangelii Gaudium” (The Joy of the Gospel), Pope Francis calls
for a rejection of the “new idolatry of money.” He notes that
“the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is
the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by
those happy few.” He calls for “more politicians who are
genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the
lives of the poor,” and for the commitment of political and
financial leaders to “ensure that all citizens have dignified
work, education and healthcare.”
Sanders continues to welcome the Pope’s past passionate
criticism of the global financial system, which has plunged more
of the world into poverty while benefiting the wealthy few.
Sanders commended the Pope. “At a time when the gap between rich
and everyone else is growing wider, at a time when Wall Street
and large financial institutions are exerting extraordinary
power over the American and world economy, I applaud the pope
for continuing to speak out on these enormously important
issues,” Sanders said. “Pope Francis is reminding people of all
walks of life, and all religious backgrounds, that we can and
must do better.”
Francis warns that our economic systems will “devour everything
which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is
fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the
interests of a deified market.”
Francis broadens the definition of the commandment “thou shalt
not kill,” by saying, “today we also have to say ‘thou shalt
not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy
kills.” In striking terms he asked “How can it be that it is not
a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure,
but it is news when the stock market loses 2 points?” He
repeated his warning that “Money must serve, not rule.”
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif
HTML http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-applauds-pope-francis-call-to-rein-in-the-tyranny-of-capitalism
#Post#: 637--------------------------------------------------
Seed Documentary: How Corporate Greed in Agriculture Destroys Bi
odiversity
By: AGelbert Date: December 29, 2013, 3:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvgaMd6GBgQ&feature=player_embedded
Advancing biological diversity was the path humans were on UNTIL
the POWER STRUCTURES in society decided to reverse this trend
into the unsustainable direction of REDUCED biological diversity
in order to CONTROL humans and increase corporate profits. Greed
is bad; greed is destroying the biosphere. [img width=100
height=080]
HTML http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png[/img]
#Post#: 662--------------------------------------------------
GRAT Socialism for the RICH
By: AGelbert Date: January 5, 2014, 8:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9cat-kJhgw&feature=player_embedded<br
/>
Grantor Retained Annuity Trust
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil12.gif
Smile, the billionaires and millionaires are paying less taxes
than YOU! :evil4:
Here's just ONE that uses GRAT extensively:
Sheldon Adelson
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vIKmYjX5p3g/Tz1hf-1tPTI/AAAAAAAABT8/WdHRUXujeY4/s1600/spelling-manor.jpg[/img]
One of his dwellings...
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://luxedb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Marina-Bay-Sands-Resort-owned-by-Sheldon-Adelson.jpg[/img]
Marina Bay Sands Resort owned by Sheldon Adelson
[move]Socialism FOR THE RICH is the American WAY![/move]
Ultra-Wealthy Dodge Billions in Taxes Using "GRAT" Loophole
December 20, 2013 01:06 PM | Permalink | Bookmark and Share
A new Bloomberg report describes how billionaires have dodged an
estimated $100 billion in gift and estate taxes since 2000,
according to the lawyer who perfected the practice.
The trick involves temporarily putting corporate stocks (or
similar assets) into a “Grantor Retained Annuity Trust” (GRAT),
where the grantor gets the stocks back after two years, plus a
small amount of interest, while any appreciation of the stock
goes to the grantor’s heirs tax-free.
Because the initial gift has no inherent value (it’s essentially
a gift to oneself), there is no gift tax at the time the GRAT is
set up. The loophole is that the appreciation of the stock that
goes to the heirs is not subject to gift tax either. As a
result, extremely wealthy individuals avoid billions of dollars
in gift and estate tax.
This is what Sheldon Adelson did (to take just one example) when
he put much of his Las Vegas Sands stock in GRATs when the stock
had plummeted during the recession. Adelson knew that the stock
was likely to rise significantly from that low point. If Adelson
had simply given his heirs the stock, the gift tax would have
applied to the value of the stock at the time it was given. Or
if he bequeathed the stock upon his death, the estate tax would
apply.
But by using GRATS, neither the value of the stock at the time
it was temporarily put into the GRAT nor the subsequent
appreciation was subject to gift or estate tax. See the graphic
(at link below) from Bloomberg for how the shelter works :evil4:
in practice.
HTML http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2013/12/ultra-wealthy_dodge_billions_i.php
HTML http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2013/12/ultra-wealthy_dodge_billions_i.php
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEz4vszCwpU&feature=player_embedded<br
/>
In today’s On the News segment: [i]The super rich have skipped
out on paying $100 billion dollars in estate taxes since 2000;
Americans are working harder than ever, but most people won't be
seeing a larger paycheck; as renewable energy becomes more
popular, the oil and gas industry is getting scared; and
more.[/i]
TRANSCRIPT:
I'm Jim Javinsky - in for Thom Hartmann – on the news…
You need to know this. The super rich have skipped out on paying
$100 billion dollars in estate taxes since 2000. And, that
incredible number doesn't even factor in the billions that they
saved using loopholes like capital gains, or by stashing their
money in tax havens around the world.
A new report from Bloomberg News says that special tax loopholes
used primarily by the super rich have made the estate tax system
“essentially voluntary” for those at the top. Basically,
billionaires like Shelly Adelson and the Walton family set up
special trust funds, like the Walton-created “grantor-retained
annuity trust” or GRAT, in which they stash millions of dollars
worth of stock. Once those GRATs expire – typically after two
years – the billionaires cash out the stock, keep their original
investment, along with a profit, and pass on the balance to
their heirs. All the while, avoiding taxes on the whole scheme.
By using these completely legal, but highly unethical, tactics,
the super wealthy have stashed away $100 billion in a little
over a decade. That amount is enough to pay for every child in
our nation to go to preschool for ten years, and it could wipe
out the entire first round of sequester cuts.
One hundred billion could have provided a substantial benefit to
our nation, and it's only one of many tax loopholes that the
super rich use to get out of paying their fair share. The super
rich like to call estate taxes “death taxes,” but trust-fund
schemes like this that are actually killing investment in our
nation. If billionaires want to do business in our great nation,
it's about time that they start contributing to the commons that
make it possible.
Here's some more WELFARE QUEENS:
[font=impact]Facebook Billionaires Used GRATs to Save $200
Million in Gift Taxes[/font]
HTML http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/05/facebook-billionaires.html
HTML http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/05/facebook-billionaires.html
#Post#: 699--------------------------------------------------
Strangelove Stanley Fischer is the POINT MAN for this NUCLEAR WA
R! STOP HIM!
By: AGelbert Date: January 14, 2014, 5:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Obama just came out with a bit of Orwell speak. Less than a
month after he named Dr. Strangelove Stanley Fischer to the Fed
in order to help orchestrate the drive to Nuking Iran, Obama
claims that Congress should "give diplomacy a chance" in Iran
rather than "adding sanctions"!
Guess what? It's the FEDERAL RESERVE that controls our planet
wide banking sanction machinery! It's the FEDERLA RESERVE that
will tighten the screws even more on Iran with Stanley Fischer
pushing for WAR with Iran.
Dear readers, this is called plausible deniability. It is ALSO
evidence that the drive to NUKE IRAN is now entering the BIG
PUSH.
This is how this "works":
THE COUNTDOWN TO THE ATTACK:
THREE: Stanley Fischer will wail and moan PUBLICLY about how
sanctions on Iran are BAD for the US and diplomacy is the "best"
alternative in dealing with Iran. ;)
TWO: A terrorist attack will take place (NOT in Israel or the
US) somewhere blaming "unknown" parties. ;) The news will dog
the story for weeks until it is REVEALED that "the Iranians DID
IT to destroy the US peace initiatives so they could get the
bomb!". Scrutiny will reveal this is all bull**** but by then
the echo chamber screaming for DEFENSIVE NUCLEAR WAR with IRAN
will be in full swing. Obama will ask for calm and diplomacy.
The stock market will tank. Iran will be blamed and labeled a
THREAT to our ECONOMY.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared005.gif
The Israeli government will PUBLISH statements about
"conciliatory gestures" towards Iran. ;)
ONE: Israel will reiterate that, under no circumstances, will
they initiate hostilities with IRAN unless they have no other
option. Many US politicians will scream that Israel MUST defend
itself from this EXISTENTIAL NUCLEAR THREAT!
ZERO: Israel, in full cooperation with the US military, makes a
nuclear strike on Iran on a friday afternoon, US EASTERN
STANDARD TIME. The plan is for Iran to be decapitated during
the weekend and the Russians and Chinese convinced the new
status quo is a docile, submissive Iran. That weekend there will
be a LOT of coverage in the US of some OTHER news, be it a
scandal or a sports event.
A message to the GOONS in the intelligence community that read
this. Tell your bosses. This WILL NOT WORK. Sure, you won't get
WWIII right away, but YOU WILL GET IT WITHIN A YEAR. Do you want
a happy fascist future retirement to look at your newsreels of
storm troopers marching with swastika arm bands back in the
"glory" days of Nazi Germany? Do you want your kids to look
human instead of like grape balls or THIS?
[img width=640
height=580]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-231113002820.png[/img]
Ce-137 caused mutation - Chernobyl baby
[move][I]WWIII will bring MORE and MORE of these mutations
because it takes about 300 YEARS for ALL the cesium-137 spread
all over the planet since they started the atomic explosions to
START DEVOLVING our species. [img width=120
height=60]
HTML http://images.zaazu.com/img/Incredible-Hulk-animated-animation-male-smiley-emoticon-000342-large.gif[/img]
[/I][/move]
If you NSA and CIA and WHATEVER "intelligence" community goons
do not stop this INSANE war on IRAN, you will have destroyed
your future gravy train and be held responsible for this human
catastrophe for all time to come. DON'T TELL ME THERE IS NOTHING
YOU CAN DO TO STOP THIS WAR. You KNOW you can put the fear of
God in the Federal Reserve ANY TIME YOU WANT. How about showing
some REAL enlightened self interest for a change instead of
being stupid ****ing game theory robots for the 1% psychopaths.
STOP BEING STUPID!
[img width=640
height=420]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120114191639.png[/img]
[move][I]Strangelove Stanley Fischer is the POINT MAN for this
NUCLEAR WAR! STOP HIM![/I][/move]
[font=impact]Please pass this on. The planet you save may be
your own. [/font]
#Post#: 750--------------------------------------------------
Corporate America Recognizes Eroding Middle Class
By: AGelbert Date: February 4, 2014, 5:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Feb 03, 2014 at 08:00 AM PST.
Corporate America Recognizes Eroding Middle Class
by
TomPFollow .
The world of business is admitting what working people have been
living: the middle class is dying:
In Manhattan, the upscale clothing retailer Barneys will replace
the bankrupt discounter Loehmann’s, whose Chelsea store closes
in a few weeks. Across the country, Olive Garden and Red Lobster
restaurants are struggling, while fine-dining chains like
Capital Grille are thriving. And at General Electric, the
increase in demand for high-end dishwashers and refrigerators
dwarfs sales growth of mass-market models.
As politicians and pundits in Washington continue to spar over
whether economic inequality is in fact deepening, in corporate
America there really is no debate at all. The post-recession
reality is that the customer base for businesses that appeal to
the middle class is shrinking as the top tier pulls even further
away.
snip
“As a retailer or restaurant chain, if you’re not at the really
high level or the low level, that’s a tough place to be,” Mr.
Maxwell said. “You don’t want to be stuck in the middle.”
Although data on consumption is less readily available than
figures that show a comparable split in income gains, new
research by the economists Steven Fazzari, of Washington
University in St. Louis, and Barry Cynamon, of the Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis, backs up what is already apparent in
the marketplace.
In 2012, the top 5 percent of earners were responsible for 38
percent of domestic consumption, [size=12pt]up from 28 percent
in 1995, the researchers found.[/size]
NY Times: The Middle Class Is Steadily Eroding. Just Ask the
Business World.
What this may mean is more and more bubbles, as the wealthy
chase higher returns that can not be created by an economy
without middle class demand. Meanwhile, the increasing
impoverishment and proletarianization of the former middle class
could lead to a greater class consciousness and acts against the
wealthy. It might. There's no inevitability.
The income and wealth inequality in our nation is immoral and
bad for business.
Update I: From bobswern in the comments:
Elizabeth Warren Dec. 4th, 2009... (2+ / 0-)
This was in 2009...back when Democrats controlled both the
House and the Senate...
America Without a Middle Class -- It's Not Far Away As You Might
Think
America today has plenty of rich and super-rich. But it has far
more families who did all the right things, but who still have
no real security.
Elizabeth Warren
Alternet.org
December 4, 2009
Can you imagine an America without a strong middle class? If you
can, would it still be America as we know it?
Today, one in five Americans is unemployed, underemployed or
just plain out of work. One in nine families can't make the
minimum payment on their credit cards. One in eight mortgages is
in default or foreclosure. One in eight Americans is on food
stamps. More than 120,000 families are filing for bankruptcy
every month. The economic crisis has wiped more than $5 trillion
from pensions and savings, has left family balance sheets upside
down, and threatens to put ten million homeowners out on the
street.
Families have survived the ups and downs of economic booms and
busts for a long time, but the fall-behind during the busts has
gotten worse while the surge-ahead during the booms has stalled
out. In the boom of the 1960s, for example, median family income
jumped by 33% (adjusted for inflation). But the boom of the
2000s resulted in an almost-imperceptible 1.6% increase for the
typical family. While Wall Street executives and others who
owned lots of stock celebrated how good the recovery was for
them, middle class families were left empty-handed.
The crisis facing the middle class started more than a
generation ago. Even as productivity rose, the wages of the
average fully-employed male have been flat since the 1970s…
[move][shadow=red,left]"I always thought if you worked hard
enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was
wrong." --Katharine Graham [/shadow][/move]by bobswern on Mon
Feb 03, 2014 at 10:35:43 AM CST
HTML http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/03/1274646/-Business-Recognizes-Eroding-Middle-Class
#Post#: 761--------------------------------------------------
Re: Power Structures in Human Society: Pros and Cons Part 1
By: AGelbert Date: February 8, 2014, 3:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
WHD said, [quote]Anyway, anarchism isn't what happens when
people who believe in capitalism and socialism find no Authority
to genuflect before, it's what happens when people come together
in the absence of Authority, to protect each other, and to
accomplish what they could not alone. Which is just what
happens. I don't need to defend it.[/quote]
As UB, said, leaders will show up. The idea that an ABSENCE of
Authority will take place is a thought experiment, not a
probable reality based on history. Humans are competitive and
ALWAYS have tried to declare themselves "the boss", no matter
how small the group. History does not provide good examples of
spontaneous cooperation born of "absence of authority" simply
because authority has ALWAYS been present in some form.
Anarchy from absence of authority is wishful thinking. It ain't
gonna happen.
WHY? Take the Fukushima tsunami, for example. No anarchy but all
the disorganization and instant infrastructure collapse along
with 25,000 instant deaths.
You may say the area wasn't big enough. Okay, half the islands
of Japan sink in a massive quake and the other half are totally
flattened. Anarchy results? I don't think so.
For the "anarchy" dream of, "hey, the goons in charge are gone
so lets cooperate and make a nice society" to have a snowball's
chance in hell to take place, you need to eliminate ALL the
governments on earth in one fell swoop AND their military
abilities including nuclear powered aircraft carriers and
submarines. AUTHORITY is NEVER going to be ABSENT.
The rules of predatory behavior dictate that, when one country
is in shambles from whatever, the strong neighbors IMMEDIATELY
jump into the authority vacuum and get the booty (pretending to
recue their neighbor, of course :evil4:).
Forget anarchy. It will never happen. Humans dream of anarchy
but never, except a brief riot here and there, function 24/7 in
that state.
A tree or a bear or a wolf is NOT concerned with a bunch of dead
prey a thousand miles away. HUMANS ARE. Humans want to take over
when their neighbors are weak or disorganized. That's the way it
is.
#Post#: 766--------------------------------------------------
ISO216 A4 paper size is a Triumph of Scientific Objectivity and
Common Sense
By: AGelbert Date: February 11, 2014, 2:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=440
height=600]
HTML http://www.happyfolding.com/files/Printer_Paper_A4_vs_letter_vs_legal.png[/img]
The international paper size standard, ISO 216, is based on the
German DIN 476 standard for paper sizes. ISO paper sizes are all
based on a single aspect ratio of square root of 2, or
approximately 1:1.4142.
The standard defines the "A" and "B" series of paper sizes,
including A4, the most commonly available size.
Successive paper sizes in the series A1, A2, A3, and so forth,
are defined by halving the preceding paper size across the
larger dimension. The most frequently used paper size is A4
measuring 210 by 297 millimetres (8.3 in × 11.7 in).
The significant advantage of this system is its scaling: if a
sheet with an aspect ratio of √2 is divided into two
equal halves parallel to its shortest sides, then the halves
will again have an aspect ratio of √2. Folded brochures of
any size can be made by using sheets of the next larger size,
e.g. A4 sheets are folded to make A5 brochures.
The system allows scaling without compromising the aspect ratio
from one size to another—as provided by office photocopiers,
e.g. enlarging A4 to A3 or reducing A3 to A4. Similarly, two
sheets of A4 can be scaled down and fit exactly 1 sheet without
any cutoff or margins.
Weights are easy to calculate as well: a standard A4 sheet made
from 80 g/m2 paper weighs 5 g (as it is one 16th of an A0 page,
measuring 1 m2), allowing one to easily compute the weight—and
associated postage rate—by counting the number of sheets used.
The advantages of basing a paper size upon an aspect ratio of
were first noted in 1786 by the German scientist and philosopher
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg.[2] Early in the 20th century, Dr
Walter Porstmann turned Lichtenberg's idea into a proper system
of different paper sizes. Porstmann's system was introduced as a
DIN standard (DIN 476) in Germany in 1922, replacing a vast
variety of other paper formats. Even today the paper sizes are
called "DIN A4" (IPA:
[diːn.ʔaː.fiːɐ̯]) in everyday use
in Germany and Austria. The term Lichtenberg ratio has recently
been proposed for this paper aspect ratio.
Agelbert NOTE: Gee what a great system! Certainly all countries
but the most stubborn, nationalistic and just plain backward
would embrace this celebration of logic, economic common sense
(i.e. easy to figure weights for postage) and scientific
leadership by the Germans, RIGHT?
By 1975 so many countries were using the German system that it
was established as an ISO standard, as well as the official
United Nations document format. By 1977 A4 was the standard
letter format in 88 of 148 countries. Today the standard has
been adopted by all countries in the world [i]except the United
States and Canada.[/I] :P
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size#Other_metric_sizes
H.G. Wells said, "Human progress is more and more a race between
education and catastrophe". I can't prove it but our refusal to
use CFS and adopt ISO 216 is evidence pointing to who the foot
dragging, backward, uneducated members of the human family
hurtling us towards CATASTROPHE are.
I like ISO 216 in general and A4 in particular. How about you?
Have a nice day. ;D
#Post#: 767--------------------------------------------------
The concept of race
By: AGelbert Date: February 11, 2014, 6:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The concept of race
The concept of race has been widely propagated since Carl
Linnaeus published Systema Naturae in 1735.
The father of modern taxonomy proposed four distinct racial
groups for human beings—American, European, Asian, and
African—that encompassed not only physical characteristics and
geographic origin, but also personality traits, skills, and
abilities.
This classification has become institutionalized with little
awareness that the variable “race” is not actually a biological
phenomenon: there is more genetic variation within these racial
groups than across them.
Rather, the notion of race is a social construct.
Despite a pervasive belief that race represents clear-cut and
genetically distinct groups of people, there is no evidence that
it is associated with any personality traits, skills, or
abilities.
The US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defines race as a
set of self-identified racial/ethnic classifications, and many
researchers argue that it is a crude tool in medical genetics.
HTML http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38950/title/On-Race-and-Medicine/
Agelbert NOTE: Do most Americans, with or without scientific
training, understand this REALITY about the NON-SCIENTIFIC basis
for assigning traits (positive or negative), innate skills (or
the LACK of them) and intelligence (or the LACK of it) according
to Carl Linnaeus's 1735 bull**** bigotry?
Does Kunstler understand this?
I don't think so.
Shame on Kunstler and all the willfully ignorant ****S that wish
to make artificial distinctions in humans in order to position
their tribe on a higher level in the social pecking order. You
evil bastards are helping destroy our future by fostering strife
born of mendacious and vicious prejudicial disdain of fellow
humans just because they look a little different.
#Post#: 773--------------------------------------------------
That's Alright, Isn't It----Everyone Is Doing It SO it must be O
K?
By: AGelbert Date: February 15, 2014, 5:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Edo said in the comments to the following story:[quote]With
the increasingly politized and clientele captured regulatory
community of non-action, Milgram's ideas are alive and well.
Regulators whose jobs are to protect the public or environment
now think nothing of bowing to industry demands and Congress
jumps in on the band wagon, all leaving the environment and
public health waving in the breeze, hey, but that's alright,
isn't it----everyone is doing it, must be OK?[/I][/quote]
Review: [i]“Please Continue”
A play that dramatizes Stanley Milgram’s infamous social
psychology experiments from the 1960s captures the personal side
of human research.
By Tracy Vence | February 11, 2014
4 Comments
In the 40 years since Yale University’s Stanley Milgram first
publicized his social psychology experiments that purported to
reveal surprising truths about authority, obedience, and human
nature, artists have dramatized the infamous research in nearly
two dozen novels, films, pop songs, and plays. Playwright Frank
Basloe joins the crowd with “Please Continue,” a play
commissioned by New York City’s Ensemble Studio Theatre (EST) in
collaboration with the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, which uses
the Milgram experiments to explore the essence of the people who
participate in scientific research.
Directed by EST’s William Carden, a nine-member cast skillfully
portrayed the personal struggles of those connected with
Milgram’s experiments—and, more broadly, early 1960s
America—during a First Light Roughcut Workshop presentation last
week (February 6).
From 1961 to 1962, Milgram and a few assistants conducted a
series of trials involving three people each—an authoritative
“experimenter,” a volunteer “teacher,” and a “learner,” who was
in on the research setup but pretended to also be an
unsuspecting volunteer. The teachers thought they were
participating in a study on memory and learning, when in fact it
was their own obedience and respect for authority that was being
tested. Once their roles had been established—by what the
teachers thought was a random draw—the experimenter set the
other two participants up in separate rooms. The learner was
connected to an electro-shock generator that the teacher
controlled. The teacher was instructed to deliver shocks in
increasing 15-volt increments whenever the learner answered a
question incorrectly. When the teacher would question or refuse
to deliver shocks, the experimenter would deliver a succession
of commands, instructing the volunteer to proceed.
“Please continue,” bellowed fictitious experimenter “Sanders,”
played by Austin Trow. “The experiment requires that you
continue.”
The trials themselves “had a lot to do with stagecraft . . .
like a play that happened in a lab,” explains Gina Perry, a
psychologist and author of the 2012 book Behind the Shock
Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology
Experiments. “When you think about what seemed to happen in
Milgram’s experiments: ordinary people enter a space and—‘Wow,
look at the power of science’—they are transformed into
monsters, [people] whose behavior we find absolutely horrendous.
That’s such a powerful story.”
It’s a powerful story that Perry notes has been
oversimplified—in psychology textbooks and dramatic
reproductions alike—over time. Most accounts of the research
hinge on a startling result: 65 percent of teachers administered
the final massive 450-volt shock, even though many said they
were uncomfortable with the experiment. In fact, Perry says, the
Milgram experiments tested 24 unique conditions on 700
participants; the 65 percent figure was gleaned from experiments
testing only one of those conditions, involving 40 participants,
and reported in a 1963 Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
paper.
“A lot of these narratives in the plays, songs, and so on are
purporting to [give] an answer to the question” about human
nature—“that the human condition is open to manipulation by
external, pernicious powers, and that there is very little we
can do to prevent that,” says Clifford Stott from the University
of Leeds Security and Justice Research Group. “That’s clearly
not the case.”
“We hear about the statistics and the data, and we hear about
the drama, but we never hear about the experiments from the
individual participant’s point-of-view,” Perry says.
And that’s exactly what this play does so well. Rather than
focusing on this experimental result explicitly, “Please
Continue” takes the audience into the minds of the teacher,
learner, and experimenter, revealing the turmoil within each.
While Basloe’s script deviates from actual events, it does so in
service of a greater purpose—to humanize the emotions of all
three participants, from the teacher’s reticence to the
learner’s penitence and the experimenter’s unending curiosity
about the reasons for others’ actions, and eventually, his own.
Psychologists still struggle to understand the many implications
of the Milgram experiments. But to Perry’s mind, the continued
cultural fascination with this research points to at least one
justified truth about human nature. “We all want answers,” she
says, which were just what Milgram’s team “seemed to offer.”
HTML http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/39140/title/Review---Please-Continue-/
[move]Agelbert NOTE: Clifford Stott from the University of Leeds
Security and Justice Research Group must be funded by the MIC.
[img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/>[img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>[/move]
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page