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 - kidcoyote

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 256
1
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: Today at 03:48 PM »

It's not science, it's religion.



Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll



This from Daniel Greenfield at sultanknishblogspot.ca
Like math and the Midwest, ISIS confuses progressives. It’s not hard to confuse a group of people who never figured out that if you borrow 18 trillion dollars, you’re going to have to pay it back. But ISIS is especially confusing to a demographic whose entire ideology is being on the right side of history.

Polls show Republicans know more about science that Democrats. Tim B posted this awhile back. You're over your head Lar, too impressed with yourself.

2
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: Yesterday at 02:38 PM »
ou know what ruins forests more than anything? Cutting them down to make "renewable" ethanol.

And since preserving the rainforests is on the list, I'd consider cutting them down to make ethanol to be a bad thing.  It's not that tough to comprehend -- if it does bad things, we shouldn't do it.  At least we should do our best to find ways around it.

But the whole AGW thing is fraudulent. Solar and wind represent 1% of the US energy grid. How does one heat their home and drive their car relying on solar and wind. IMO, fossil fuels have done more for the human race and its health and welfare than anything. Wind has been used for energy since at least Viking days, and solar, forever. I happen to be a fan of solar, and eventually think it will be a major power source, once harnessed efficiently. But now? Puhlease. Think of what fossil fuels have brought us:

plastic
heat
fuel to power cars, airplanes, trains, buses
fuel to power industry
freedom of movement of people
reduced weight of all vehicles due to plastic
iPhones, iPads and all computers which have any plastic or any parts made by using heat
It's organic
Requires no production, just extraction. Ethanol requires 8 barrels of oil to make 9 barrels of ethanol
It's reliable. Think of this if you were driving cross country, 3,000 miles. A diesel, with a 16 gallon tank, and 30 mpg, would require 6 stops(from a full tank), all along the way, with minor disruption. An electric vehicle would limit you to 200-300 miles per day, then plug in all night. It would take double the time to cross the country. Truckers can't have these delays. It would double the transport costs of all goods. You want to double the labor cost of every product that comes off a truck? The economy would collapse.

All the AGW crowd wants is government funding so they can get rich. For the academics, they just want continued funding, aka jobs. And these meetings like in Copenhagen and Durban, South Africa? 20,000 people attend these meetings, and the prices? In Durban, the rooms were $1,500 per night. Even if they get a 50% discount, they're still staying there 5-6 days. It's hundreds of millions of dollars. And they all fly by jet. Total costs must be $10,000 per person, and that's probably low. That's $200,000,000. And what do they accomplish? In Davos recently, there were 1,700 private jets. These people have no intention of saving the planet, just lining their own pockets. People are greedy by nature. I'm greedy, you're greedy, they're greedy. Don't be fooled by talk of saving the planet. BS. Fossil fuels are too plentiful, too cheap and too easily obtained. The green crowd can't compete, so they want mandates, making fossil fuels more expensive. Pharrel Williams is doing a tour with Al Gore on the dangers of global warming/climate change. Here he is in his private jet. When I have a private jet like him, or an 11,000 sq. ft. house like Tom Friedman, I'll support global warming. Until then, not. It's not science, it's religion.


3
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: Yesterday at 01:00 PM »
Maybe the global warmists should include these benefits.

Birds Exploding Over Solar Farms

The operators of the farm show must how much money they're making by their solution. Paying $200 million to bird groups so they shut up. Oh, and it's government grant financed. So, they're taking taxpayer money to shut up critics.

And let's not forget the wonders of wind farms. One wind farm in CA, one, kills 116 eagles per year. 1.4 million birds are expected to be killed by wind farms by 2030. Nice benefit, huh?

Wind Farms Kill 10-20 Times More Birds Than Previously Thought

4
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: Yesterday at 12:42 PM »
I was thinking of the Marilyn Savant Monty Hall question, and I'm changing my answer again. Here are the facts.

1. If Monty Hall doesn't know what's behind the doors, he chooses blind, there is no benefit in changing choices. After he reveals a door with a goat, there are now two doors left, and it becomes 50/50.
2. If he does know what's behind each door, as the question states, then revealing one of the two doors left, and showing a goat would suggest the contestant should switch, as Monty may have picked the only door he could, as the other may very well have the car, and he wouldn't choose that. So, yes, it'd be 66.66% to switch.

But there is another possibility, maybe not probability, but possibility.
3. Let's say the show has had a week, where the contestants won multiple awards, far exceeding normal payouts. And let's say Monty knows the contestant chose the car in his first choice, and the show's operators want to limit payouts. By opening up the choices again, isn't he enticing the player to change his choice so he doesn't win?

I won't say the last is a probability but the chance of that being true is not zero. Go at it, Lar.

5
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: Yesterday at 12:17 PM »
I'll go with this guy. Everyone here can believe the rent seekers.



like these two sexual assaulters. Are these guys scientists?


6
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: Yesterday at 12:08 PM »


This cartoon pretty much nails my opinion.  I don't care if it's a hoax or not.  All the bullet points in the presentation are good.  So do it even if global warming is a hoax.

But they're not necessarily related. Fracking for gas, and using gas vs coal, has improved air quality. Healthy children? Hah. All of these are false dichotomies. Energy independence? How? Solar and wind represent 1%of energy production. How they heck are they going to provide independence? It's total BS. Google's work on this was clear. It's a pipe dream. Folly. Can people be that gullible? How about this list re fracking?

Energy independence
High paying jobs
Lower unemployment
Clean air
Eliminate our trade deficit
Farmers(who are starving) getting rich
Healthy children
Clean water
Lower utility bills
Money savings for all Americans
Industrial renaissance due to cheap energy=more jobs
Revitalization of communities, like in Western PA
Sustainability of forests(fracking isn't done in jungles)

The left always offers these ridiculous choices. All they want is money. You know what ruins forests more than anything? Cutting them down to make "renewable" ethanol. I am surprised you fall for this baloney.

7
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: February 21, 2015, 10:38 PM »
Good lord. Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for a Doubtful Climate Scientist

Quote
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress....

Though often described on conservative news programs as a “Harvard astrophysicist,” Dr. Soon is not an astrophysicist and has never been employed by Harvard. He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering. He has received little federal research money over the past decade and is thus responsible for bringing in his own funds, including his salary.

Though he has little formal training in climatology, Dr. Soon has for years published papers trying to show that variations in the sun’s energy can explain most recent global warming. His thesis is that human activity has played a relatively small role in causing climate change.

Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change.



How much of the $22 billion the DOE gives out annually did he receive? I love the "many experts in the field say" part. Did he get as much as Obama bundler George Kaiser got for Solyndra, $500 million, which was lower in the corporate structure than Kaiser's stake? Or as much as RFK, Jr., $1.4 billion for his solar investment? Got a name of one of the "many experts"? Maybe it was IPCC head, who was just charged with sexual assault. He might have to go back to being a railroad engineer. How did a RR engineer become head of the IPCC, anyway? Connections? Or was he an Obama bundler? Psst. ....wattsupwiththat is the #1 viewed climate site; drudgereport is the #1 internet site;Fox News dominates. You accuse others of being in an alternate universe? Preconceptions can be dangerous.

8
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: February 21, 2015, 10:16 PM »
Another "the science is settled" debunked. Thank goodness. When one thinks of all the damage the former policies have caused, why anyone listens to the government is inexplicable. mjg, you'll love this. Could they have been more wrong?

NY Times: The Government's Bad Diet Advice

The next time you hear, "the science is settled", on anything, you can be sure it isn't. Real scientists never proclaim that. Never.

9
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: February 21, 2015, 10:23 AM »
This was widely reported in many news services.

15 NY State Towns Consider Seceding to PA

For those who didn't follow the NYS denial of fracking approval, the supposed "exhaustive study" took 6 years, and the scientific result of the study? Cuomo's front man, a health commissioner, stated(I'm not making this up), "I wouldn't want my  kids growing up next to a fracking site". You know what's amazing about this? He has no kids. Yet, when Cuomo heard this, he stated, "If he wouldn't want his kids growing up next to it, neither would I. That's good enough for me." Scientific, huh? The party of science my a**. The party of political donors. Cuomo lives off NYC liberal donors. F the upstaters. Let them eat cake. Recently, an old timer in Binghamton stated, "it used to be if you quit your job at 9 am, you'd have an offer by noon. Now, the best jobs are at McDonald's." I thought the left was for poor people. Guess not. Maybe their solution for the affected NY area workers is to work at McDonald's, then protest and sue for higher wages. Get the DOJ involved. You know, a disparate impact case. In the meantime, sign up for food stamps, welfare and Obamacare. You'll be taken care of. We have to save the planet.

Here's a PA news source. I see the first link is a bit inhibited to viewing.

http://wnep.com/2015/02/19/report-ny-towns-would-consider-seceding-to-pa/

As it seems that PA, NY and the Federal government have to approve this, don't see how it can happen. I wonder if becoming its own state, the 4 counties, would have more of a possibility. Of course, joining PA would be easier in terms of administration, with a state government already in place, but maybe less hurdles going it alone. Maybe NYS's approval wouldn't be necessary. Ron Paul has recently had some statements on secession. Never really been a fan of Ron Paul, esp on foreign policy, but he has some legit points.

Ron Paul on Secession

10
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: February 21, 2015, 09:46 AM »
Lar, you state you used evidence, but it's scant. It's always surface temperatures that have been adjusted. In addition, it's over very short periods, like 150 years, which is ridiculous. As we now have had no warming for more than 18 years, the AGW crowd say that's too short, but so is 150 years. Here are some long term charts that haven't been "adjusted". I just don't see any reason for alarm.


Yes, this only goes to 2000, but even if you add .3 degrees C, which the satellite data shows in the lower chart, it doesn't mean squat, and coming out of an ice age?


Satellite data



These charts demonstrate, that if you use a short period, 18+ years of satellite data, or up to 10,000 years of ice core data, both non-adjusted or manipulated, it shows AGW to be bunk. That's hard evidence over various time periods. You want to use adjusted temperatures for the last 130 years, coming out of an ice age? And that's evidence? Hardly. That's religion. Coerced religion. Show me some of your "evidence" which doesn't include adjusted surface temperatures.

11
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: February 20, 2015, 11:14 PM »
I laugh because I knew kid wouldn't get it when I posted it! My job is done here.

Here's why the 100 door version works better for me intuitively ....

When you pick one of 100 doors, there is a one percent chance that you picked the right one and a 99 percent chance that the car is behind one of the other 99 doors. If the host, who knows where the car is, opens 97 goat doors and asks you if you want to switch, it seems easier to see that it is highly likely that the car is behind the unchosen door.

Once you get your mind around that, it's easier to reduce that understanding to the three-door version.


Your job is done? Hah. I think John nailed it here, and you as well. I wouldn't wear a hole in your shirt from patting yourself on the back. Many of your arguments are lacking of arithmetic, and more emotionally based. Nassim Taleb is math based, Krugman emotional. The distinction is clear.

Back to the case. It's not quite so clear. If the host's pick is blind, and he could open a door with the car, but doesn't, then it's 50/50. But if the host knows where the car is, yes, Marilyn is correct. And as the way I read it, he did know where the goat was, yes, I'd say Marilyn is correct. I stand corrected. Good question. Some of the analysis here and on sites is just not right. It did take me awhile(had a dinner engagement for 2 hours) to find an explanation which made sense.

This explains it well. Math's a bit heavy, but the logic is here. The host may be forced to pick door #3 to avoid the car door.  But if you read your post of the problem, while it says the host knows what's going on behind the scenes, it doesn't say he uses that knowledge to pick a door. If he's picking blind, then asks the contestant if they'd like to switch, it's 50/50 on the switch. As I said, I did read it at the time, that he knew where the goat was. So, I'd say she's correct. But that isn't certain. I'm trying to figure out how this can be used in real games.

http://www.math.uah.edu/stat/games/MontyHall.html

12
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: February 20, 2015, 05:38 PM »
Not sure I'm on board either. In the worded example, one door is already revealed as having a goat. So, in the below chart, there is no door #3 or door #6 with an auto as a choice. It's already been revealed as a goat. So, games 3 and 6 are invalid. They're only valid until door #3 is revealed. Once it's revealed, only games 1,2,4 and 5 are available, and they're 50/50. Sorry, Marilyn, I gotta say no.



I find the second example worse. 99% vs 1%. NFW. The odds change for both choices. Let's say there were two players, and one picked door #1 and the other door #100. So, they initially had a 99 to 1 chance against being right, the 98 doors not chosen, and the choice of the other participant. With 2 doors left, 1 and 100, they'd each improve their odds by switching, from instead of 99 to 1, to 99% chance each of winning? How is that possible? Shouldn't make any difference, according to this that there are two players, not one.

Okay, go ahead Lar, I'm ready! ;)


Why should I bother?  You never pay any attention to real evidence any way.  This has been proven true over and over by the best mathematicians in the world.  It's even been shown to be true by real world testing ala MythBusters.


Au contraire on the evidence. On AGW, I'll post work from Heinz Hug, Lindzen, Svensmark, Kirkby and Happer debunking AGW.

What do you post? Hottest year on record and 97%. But on the latter, I've debunked it, all 4 surveys/studies, which I posted here. On the hottest year, these are surface temperatures, which are manipulated/adjusted. Satellite data show no such thing. Satellite data is around only since '79, and not manipulated or adjusted. You're being dishonest here. You provide scant evidence, just alarming scare tactics. And if I'm not right on this, show me one single paper, one, written in the last 5 years, from a scientist, not a newspaper, which provides hard evidence of warming, not using adjusted temperatures, but ice core or satellite data. It just doesn't exist. And the adjusted temperatures is a racket, done by mostly GISS and NOAA. There's just a few groups involved here, including Hadley and PSU. That's about it, 3 or 4 epicenters of climate manipulation. Why? How about $22 billion per year from the DOE. That enough incentive?

Do you even know what Michael Mann's "trick to hide the decline" even is? He used tree ring data, until it didn't reveal warming, then he switched to proxy data, aka, adjusted temperatures. Did you even know this? So, his data are 75% tree ring, 25% made up using adjusted temperatures. Don't believe me? I can provide the climategate emails.

Then there's this f'n creep.

UN Climate Chief Investigated for Sexual Harassment

And this.

Congress to Investigate NASA for Data Tampering

Science blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym) has been a major critic of NASA’s and NOAA’s temperature measurements. Goddard points out that NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center makes the present look warmer by artificially cooling past temperatures to show a warming trend.

“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview last month.

“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”

13
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: February 20, 2015, 05:14 PM »
It's even been shown to be true by real world testing ala MythBusters.

Think about it this way.  If you went back and watched tape of every episode of the Monty Hall Show, you would be able to test it out too.  What percentage of the time was the initial chosen door the winner?  Has to be 33% since they always had three doors in this game.  It doesn't matter what happened next, the game is already started and that door has a 33% chance of being the winning door throughout the entire game.

Don't agree. Let's say there were two contestants. 1 contestant picked door #1 and the second picked door #2. If they both switched, would they each have a 66 2/3 chance of winning? They each have a 1 of 3 chance of winning when started. After a door is eliminated, their odds are reduced, and they're 50/50, they're not 33% anymore, and they would not go to 66 2/3 each. I'm not convinced. I may be wrong, but these arguments are not convincing.

Look at the 100 door problem Put in two contestants. If they're still left after 98 revealed doors, what are their respective odds? And do those odds change if they swap doors? How is that possible? I say, with only 2 doors left, the odds are 50/50, they're not 99 to 1, and wouldn't reverse if they switched. Not logical.

Did you ever hear this question? Everyone knows if you flip a coin, it's 50/50 heads or tails. What if you flip a coin 10 times, and 9 times it's heads, and 1 time it's tails. What are the odds on the next flip that it's tails?

14
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: February 20, 2015, 04:14 PM »
Not sure I'm on board either. In the worded example, one door is already revealed as having a goat. So, in the below chart, there is no door #3 or door #6 with an auto as a choice. It's already been revealed as a goat. So, games 3 and 6 are invalid. They're only valid until door #3 is revealed. Once it's revealed, only games 1,2,4 and 5 are available, and they're 50/50. Sorry, Marilyn, I gotta say no.



I find the second example worse. 99% vs 1%. NFW. The odds change for both choices. Let's say there were two players, and one picked door #1 and the other door #100. So, they initially had a 99 to 1 chance against being right, the 98 doors not chosen, and the choice of the other participant. With 2 doors left, 1 and 100, they'd each improve their odds by switching, from instead of 99 to 1, to 99% chance each of winning? How is that possible? Shouldn't make any difference, according to this that there are two players, not one.

Okay, go ahead Lar, I'm ready! ;)

15
OT / Re: OT: Movie Thread
« on: February 20, 2015, 12:24 AM »
Anyone watching, "Better Call Saul"? It's on A&E, Mondays at 9 pm. Lawyer from Breaking Bad, Bob Odenkirk, who also played the chief of police in "Fargo", which was great. He was terrific in that.  If you liked Breaking Bad, you'll like this. It's a pre-quel(sp).

I have not watched Breaking Bad BUT I liked the first three Better Call Saul.

You should watch Breaking Bad afterwards, as this is a pre-quel. The lead is the attorney for Brian Cranston, the lead in Breaking Bad.

Saw Two Days One Night this evening. The lead actress is up for best actress. Good movie, not award stuff, but good. Quiet film, no music at all. Worth seeing. Many one on one scenes, awkward, semi confrontational.Well done.

16
OT / Re: OT: Movie Thread
« on: February 19, 2015, 04:28 PM »
Saw Foxcatcher last night. My wife wanted to see it. I didn't. I did not know much about it, but thought it was sort of strange, from reading reviews, and that it was. Good, but too creepy for me. True story. I can't recommend it. Mark Ruffalo and Channing Tatum were good. I thought Steve Carrell too weird. Not sure I can put it in any category, other than non-fiction. Not sure why anyone would make this movie. I like good vs evil, where good wins. I can even take evil winning(No Country For Old Men), but this was a dull pain. Much better stuff out there. Tonight, might watch Two Days, One Night, a Belgian film, in French. 7.5 on imdb. Lived in Belgium for one semester, so kind of fond of it. I lived in Bruges, so yes, I saw "In Bruges". It wasn't very good, but the camera shots brought back memories. Not sure they had to have the clock tower in every shot, but it was still good to see.

Anyone watching, "Better Call Saul"? It's on A&E, Mondays at 9 pm. Lawyer from Breaking Bad, Bob Odenkirk, who also played the chief of police in "Fargo", which was great. He was terrific in that.  If you liked Breaking Bad, you'll like this. It's a pre-quel(sp).

17
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: February 19, 2015, 09:00 AM »
If you haven't already made up your mind, and are open to new information/facts, this is an interesting read. This is a review of the article, which is much shorter than the full piece, so an easier read. There's a link to the full piece. It's all about confirmation bias.

Reconsidering Ocean Calamaties

Here's a select few stories the original piece highlights as "excessive". As Hayward states, "Hope these guys have tenure". The usual suspects here, NY Times, LA Times, Seattle Times, CNN, etc.

Examples of Excessive Media Headlines on Ocean Calamities

18
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: February 19, 2015, 08:38 AM »
Since I was doing it mostly to relax, my pace was purposely slow. The routing for hitting 100 shots wouldn't necessarily work for the pressure of an actual game or 90 sec contest, however, I do think they would help people improve their FT shooting.

Me personally, I never played organized basketball. By best skills are boxing out and fouling. Normally, I'd say I'm a 60% shooter from the line. At first I only saw modest improvement, but then all at once it seemed to click. Maybe the end of June?

To do 100 shots, he has this ritual with ten pennies. Since the act of counting to 100 might distract you from your routine he has you count to ten, move a penny. Count to ten, move a penny. I think he suggests moving them from one pocket to the other. 

What I would do is lay ten pennies on the court next to me. When I got to ten, if I had made all ten, I'd kick a penny behind me. If I had missed any of the ten, I'd kick it to the side. The times that I did hit 100, I didn't realize it until I finished and saw all ten pennies behind me. Part of my rhythm would be to count to ten, erase  my mind and count to ten again.

If you don't have the pennies to help, and you're in a game, does that affect your ability? You know, is it a necessary crutch? I suppose you could have shorts with pockets. My basketball relied on boxing out and fouling as well. My brother was the basketball player, captain of Marist when they were D2, and when he was a senior he met this '7 player, a 17 year old, who was going to attend, and they were headed to D1. He said he was pretty good. Rik Smits.

Only when you have to shoot that 11th one in a row.    ::)

Do you even understand what he's using the pennies for?

I do now. I thought it was some ritual. Read it too fast. My bad.

19
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: February 19, 2015, 08:09 AM »
Two throughts on the Rick Barry thing...
1.  I think there is an advantage to shooting from a lower position.  Just like the toss for a tennis serve where the ball raches the peak of the rise and has the least amount of energy, shooting the basketball from a lower position allows the ball to reach the rim with a lower amount of energy using the same arc as you  would if your shot it overhand.
2.  It sure looked like the knee bend was providing the majority of the energy in the underhand free throw.  I think in repetitive things like a golf shot, a tennis swing, or a free throw, the more you can depend on the larger muscles, the more consistent result you can achieve.  The underhand throw depends on a lot more leg lift than a traditional overhand freerow, which has a lot more small-muscle wrist action.

I tried it as a teen, with poor success. My right hand kept taking over, and it'd spin sideways like. I think the descending arc is better on it, at least the way Barry does it. I think the peak of the arc is closer to the rim, you know, later. I saw Barry play live once, when he was on the Nets, with the red/white/blue ball. He had 48 points. Going from a vague memory, didn't the ABA have the 3 point arc first?

20
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: February 18, 2015, 05:50 PM »
Since I was doing it mostly to relax, my pace was purposely slow. The routing for hitting 100 shots wouldn't necessarily work for the pressure of an actual game or 90 sec contest, however, I do think they would help people improve their FT shooting.

Me personally, I never played organized basketball. By best skills are boxing out and fouling. Normally, I'd say I'm a 60% shooter from the line. At first I only saw modest improvement, but then all at once it seemed to click. Maybe the end of June?

To do 100 shots, he has this ritual with ten pennies. Since the act of counting to 100 might distract you from your routine he has you count to ten, move a penny. Count to ten, move a penny. I think he suggests moving them from one pocket to the other. 

What I would do is lay ten pennies on the court next to me. When I got to ten, if I had made all ten, I'd kick a penny behind me. If I had missed any of the ten, I'd kick it to the side. The times that I did hit 100, I didn't realize it until I finished and saw all ten pennies behind me. Part of my rhythm would be to count to ten, erase  my mind and count to ten again.

If you don't have the pennies to help, and you're in a game, does that affect your ability? You know, is it a necessary crutch? I suppose you could have shorts with pockets. My basketball relied on boxing out and fouling as well. My brother was the basketball player, captain of Marist when they were D2, and when he was a senior he met this '7 player, a 17 year old, who was going to attend, and they were headed to D1. He said he was pretty good. Rik Smits.

21
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: February 18, 2015, 05:43 PM »
That last shooter has the yips...reminds me of Mackey Sasser, a guy who played catcher for the Mets back in the '90s.  ESPN did a fascinating 30 for 30 short film about him trying to get therapy for it.  So amazing how our brain works, and how many ways it can go haywire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk-yrNVGnd8

I'm a Mets fan, and just watched that piece. Pretty good. I don't really remember that so well. But it appears his hurt ankles from the collision started that. He could hit. A lefty hitting catcher, not that common. Simmons switch hit, I think Lavalliere hit lefty, can't think of others besides Mackey. Oh, Yogi. In 1950, Yogi hit 28 hr's and K'd 12 times. Is that incredible or what? Today, guys strike out that much in a 10 game homestand.

22
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: February 18, 2015, 03:31 PM »
I have that book and gave it a good try several summers ago. I thought I had posted on here about it but couldn't find it by searching. Maybe it was an earlier version of the site.

Anyway, one of the local parks used to have a halfcourt. One summer, I'd hide a ball in the bushes and go for a walk and come back and shoot free throws. I did this 3-4 times a week from April until Thanksgiving and I tried following his instructions the best that I could. For me personally, it really worked. I would take 100 shots each time and and by the end I had hit 100 in a row a few times.

I'd like to give the Rick Barry method a serious try. I had a civics teacher in high school that was stone cold with the under hand technique. He was in his 60s at the time.

DeAndre Jordan Should Follow George Johnson, Learn FTs From Rick Barry

http://youtu.be/9bqa-Hw0TpY

Monday, November 17, 2014 5:41 pmWritten by: Tim Livingston




That's incredible, 100 in a row. Why don't you enter the contest? Does the method have a long pre-shot routine where you'd limit your shots so much you couldn't win shooting for 1 minute? Seems to me, if not, you'd be a good contestant. I tried all methods as a kid, including the Barry one, but I couldn't do that one at all. My hands are bigger now, so maybe it'd be easier. I even tried, with some success, the Don Nelson method. Of course, he made the 5 worst, but I don't know why. But look at the #1 guy here, the last one. Warning: if you even view it, it may affect your FT shooting. I mean, wow. Don't watch it if you want to enter that contest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhWbo1obAF8

23
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: February 17, 2015, 02:36 PM »
http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/12320537/casino-new-jersey-allow-physical-skill-based-gambling

JC3 - wherever you are - I'm ready to bankroll you!


What about that guy that wrote that book on free throws? I purchased it, never read it, but his record was unreal. He hit 500 FT's in a row over 400 times. His record is something like 2000+ straight. And he was either a retired physician or dentist, and picked it up at age 72. Here it is:

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Throw-Steps-Success-Line/dp/0062734342/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1424201745&sr=8-1&keywords=free+throws

I see in your link they only give 90 seconds, and I think his method requires some pre-shot stuff, which may be too slow to get enough shots in.

24
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: February 17, 2015, 02:09 PM »
Good read on the mortgage crisis, even if it takes some effort to plow through:

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2015/02/study-foreshadowed-three-fraud-epidemics-drove-crisis.html


One can continue to stick one's head in the sand, but Ruane Cunniff is still recommending voting against former Fannie Mae CEO, James Johnson, who removed mortgage regulators who were too tough on underwriting standards. For those unaware, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned greater than 50% of the mortgage market in 2007/2008, so they wrote the underwriting standards, just like today. Some seem to not understand this. FYI, Ruane Cunniff started by Bill Ruane, classmate at Columbia Business School with Warren Buffett. When Buffett closed his partnership in 1969, he asked Ruane to take his accounts. Berkshire was their first buy, It was about $19 per share at the time, or when Buffett got in. Now, $220,000 per share. Ruane died a few years ago, but the Sequoia Fund has been spectacular.

http://www.sequoiafund.com/images/rcg.pdf

This about says it all, but if you want to believe fairy tales and blame it on elite banks, go ahead. Ignorance is bliss. This is only for people who don't subscribe to the following: "I've already made up my mind, don't confuse me with facts." Fannie Mae and Freddie were leveraged at 100 to 1, vs. 30 to 1 for the big banks. That's a fact. Fannie and Freddie shareholders were wiped out. That's a fact. James Johnson made $100 million. That's a fact. Franklin Raines, next CEO, made $85 million, Jamie Gorelick made $23 million there. Those are facts. Believe what you will.

Mr. Johnson has been at the center of several egregious corporate governance debacles. As chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the mortgage giant Fannie Mae from 1991 through 1998, Johnson lobbied Congress relentlessly to relax Fannie’s underwriting standards and lower the capital requirements put in place to protect taxpayers from losses in the event of a downturn in the housing market. As a government-sponsored entity (GSE), Fannie Mae enjoyed an implicit federal guarantee of its obligations. Originally structured to provide liquidity to the mortgage market, in the 1990s. Fannie dramatically expanded its portfolio of retained mortgages. It used the implied guarantee of its debt to borrow money at low rates and then buy higher-yielding mortgages. Much of Fannie’s profit was directly attributable to its ability to borrow money cheaply as a GSE. Yet rather than act conservatively to protect taxpayers, during Johnson’s tenure Fannie ramped up its growth by buying lower-quality mortgages. This bloated Fannie’s balance sheet, increased its profit and magnified the risk to taxpayers.

As Fannie expanded, it suffered poor internal controls. A 2006 report by the company’s regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, found Fannie had overstated its earnings every yearfrom 1998 to 2004 to make targets that boosted executive compensation. Mr. Johnson was chairmanand CEO in 1998 and chairman of the executive committee in 1999. He remained a well-paid consultant to Fannie Mae after leaving the board. Among many damning disclosures, OFHEO foundthat in 1998, Fannie Mae’s “incorrect accounting spared it approximately $500 million in impairmentlosses” it should have taken. This had the effect of inflating earnings and thus executive bonuses.In response to OFHEO’s concerns, the Securities and Exchange Commission reviewed Fannie Mae’s accounting and in 2006 the company took a $7.0 billion net charge to restate earnings for the years prior to January 1, 2002. As a comment on the management culture Johnson created, we can’t think of a stronger indictment than this:

From 2004 to 2006, Fannie Mae replaced its CEO, CFO, all senior accounting officers, general counsel, chief risk officer, chief audit executive and chief compliance officer.

In 2008, the housing bubble popped. Fannie Mae was ruined and the implicit federal guarantee became explicit. Taxpayers were left with hundreds of billions of dollars of losses on bad mortgages.

25
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: February 17, 2015, 01:55 PM »

Temperature measurement praxis and instrumentation? They went back more than 50 years and changed the temperatures. I can't open the video at work, where I'm still at, so can't respond to that. But regarding America, I read a piece once where a writer, from the midwest somewhere, had newspaper clippings showing the recorded temps, from the 1930's, which had been adjusted 60 years later. This is absurd. Thermometers worked back then. Mercury thermometers are as reliable as any, and they were invented in the 1700's.


Your observation about mercury thermometers is exactly the point.  IF all the reporting stations used mercury thermometers all the time, that would eliminate one variable.  However, reporting stations did not always use the same equipment.  One station may have changed instrumentation two or three or more times throughout its history thereby introducing bias into their historical record.  Hence the need to adjust the raw data for homogeneity.  It is not a conspiracy.  It is science.

http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

From the article:
"Most of the stations have changed from using liquid in glass thermometers (LiG) in Stevenson screens to electronic Minimum Maximum Temperature Systems (MMTS) or Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS). Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960, as part of an effort by the National Weather Service to improve precipitation measurements.

All of these changes introduce (non-random) systemic biases into the network. For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s, and even folks deeply skeptical of the temperature network like Anthony Watts and his coauthors add an explicit correction for this in their paper."


Let me get this straight. Every single weather station, N America, S America, etc, overstated the temperatures? I'm not buying it. Things are just not that uniform nor easy. None could have underestimated the temperature? All failed in the same direction? That defies common sense. If you just take the US, the 1930's was the period of the Dust Bowl, written about in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, records in the US at the time, show significantly higher temperatures than the 1990's. Most of these appeared in newspapers, whether in Virginia, Nebraska, Kansas, Georgia, etc. All of them were wrong? Sorry, just can't buy this. Since '79, satellites were used, and they show no warming, and more importantly, no adjustments. Ice core samples taken in Greenland, show much warmer temperatures, and much higher CO2 concentrations over the last 10,000 years.

There's another item. Many of the AGW crowd are either not scientists, or are government funded or government employed. Bill McKibben has no science degree. He either went to Williams or Amherst, probably took English or poetry. Naomi Klein, a prolific writer on AGW is an idiot, and her musings border on incoherent. Her latest book? We need communism to save the planet. And who are the top AGW scientists? Mann mentions Hansen, but Hansen's latest work was laughed at by all, even his own side. Mann? There's no more hockey stick in any publications, even the IPCC dropping it. On the non-AGW crowd, there's Svensmark, Lindzen, Happer, Heinz Hug among others. They have all their publications online. I don't see any from the AGW crowd online. All I see is 97%, but that's totally bogus. I posted a pdf which disputed all 4 of those supposed studies. One, Cook et al, sent out 3,000 surveys, got 2,100 back, and chose 77, claiming those were the only "atmospheric scientists", but that begs the question, "why did you send out 3,000 surveys if you were only going to use 77? Of the 77, 3 were anti-AGW, and 74/77 is 97%. I know stats somewhat, and data mining, and that's totally BS. You can't get 2,100 surveys back and use 77. Absurd. Subjective.  I can be convinced, but when I read Svensmark, Hug, Happer, they make more sense. They have real science, data, records, etc. Svensmark uses 500 million year old fossils to measure carbon content over the entire period. Then there's the ice core samples which show much higher prior warming. Or Freeman Dyson. He's right. No science is ever "settled". Look at this new evidence just out. How radical is this departure from years of dietary dogma? Just last week my sister asked me if I was worried about cholesterol by eating eggs every morning. I said, no, that's BS. Eggs are a natural food. NFW they can be bad for you. Chicken is good, but eggs bad? Puhlease.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/chi-cholesterol-fda-warnings-20150214-story.html#page=1

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 256