Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Doomsteading / Re: The Adapters Movement 1 - In Four Parts
« Last post by cernunnos5 on Today at 09:31:36 AM »
I should also point out, Depression is one of the 5 stages of grief. And it seems a pretty reasonable response.

Being scared shitless is also a proper response.

Which brings up this article- Time To Panic- And fear may be the only thing that saves us.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/opinion/sunday/fear-panic-climate-change-warming.html
2
Doomsteading / Re: The Adapters Movement 1 - In Four Parts
« Last post by cernunnos5 on Today at 09:22:11 AM »
The full article (as a whole) is now up. Done

https://darkgreenmountainsurvivalresearchcentre.wordpress.com/2019/02/19/acceptance-and-triage-the-adapters-movement/

As a bonus, De Nob, Administrator of The Canadian Preppers Network and The International Preppers Network, decided to throw in his support and will be presenting the 4 part series at CPN.

I also added comments he had added into the peer reviewers comments near the end. And Michael Jensen also got back to us from India for his comments
3
It's just that the breakfast videos come on at 10 am my time and I don't eat breakfast on work days...so I'm hungry as hell. Last thing I want to look at is a tasty omelette.

I'll check out the crab video, being a veteran crab boiler myself, even though we don't get the best here.

The shrimp here are right up there, however. Oysters too.

A hint on the Crab.  I'm prepping it to cook it Japanese Tappan style, not doing traditional steaming or boiling.

No more info than that, I don't want to spoil it. lol.

RE
4
It's just that the breakfast videos come on at 10 am my time and I don't eat breakfast on work days...so I'm hungry as hell. Last thing I want to look at is a tasty omelette.

I'll check out the crab video, being a veteran crab boiler myself, even though we don't get the best here.

The shrimp here are right up there, however. Oysters too.
5
Far Out Newz / Re: ***YOUR BUSTED***
« Last post by azozeo on Today at 08:24:04 AM »

Where El Chapo Could End Up: A Prison ‘Not Designed for Humanity’


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/nyregion/el-chapo-prison.html
6
Knarfs Knewz / Nancy Pelosi to Europe: Trump is not the boss
« Last post by knarf on Today at 08:22:36 AM »
The house speaker underlined ‘power of the purse’ belongs to Congress, not the president.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants Europe to know who's really boss in Washington — and it isn't President Donald Trump.

Pelosi and a delegation of U.S. lawmakers were in Brussels on Monday and Tuesday to reassure European partners at a time when transatlantic relations have been deeply fractured by Trump's criticism of allies and his unpredictability in policymaking.

Among the messages that Pelosi said she brought to the EU capital was that the U.S. president is not all-powerful. Of course, it was a lesson Europeans watched her teach Trump in the standoff over a recent government shutdown — where she forced the president to back down.

"We're not a parliamentary government even though we're parliamentarians," Pelosi said at a news conference. "We have Article 1, the legislative branch, the first branch of government, coequal to the other branches and we have asserted ourselves in that way."

Pelosi said that one European colleague had asked why the House of Representatives had only recently adopted a resolution in support of NATO. She said that she explained it was because she and the Democrats had only retaken control of the majority at the start of the year.

    "I think it's a reminder tour that the United States government is not just one branch." — US Rep. Gerry Connolly

"I said because we just got the majority and then we can control, we can manage what goes on to the floor," Pelosi said. "But once the Republican colleagues had the opportunity to vote on this, H.R. 676 NATO Support Act — what was it? 357 to 22 no's. I think that that sends a very clear message."

Pelosi added, "I don't think that there's any difference between Democrats and Republicans on our relationship with NATO. This is not partisan in any way."

Representative Gerry Connolly, a Democrat from Virginia, reiterated Pelosi's point about Congressional authority.

"In terms of the question — is this a reassurance tour? I think it's a reminder tour," Connolly said, "that the United States government is not just one branch. And as the Speaker said, Article 1, the first Article in the Constitution of the United States deals with the powers of the legislative branch not the executive branch and those powers include war and peace and even direction of the armed forces."

Pelosi then leaned back toward the microphone to interject: "And the power of the purse."

    The visit was clearly intended to draw a contrast between Congressional Democrats and Trump.

Neither Pelosi nor any member of her delegation mentioned the president by name, but it was an unmistakable message to Trump back in Washington, where the president has declared a national emergency, intent on building his wall along the Mexican border even though Congress has denied him the money to do so.

A group of states has filed a lawsuit seeking to stop Trump, and the upcoming court fight will almost certainly test the balance of powers between the executive branch and Congress.

Pelosi and her delegation arrived in Brussels after attending the annual Munich Security Conference, where the deep fissures in transatlantic relations were on full display.

At the news conference in Brussels, Pelosi said that she and her delegation were in Europe "reaffirming our commitment to the transatlantic alliance, our commitment to NATO and respect for the European Union."

The visit was clearly intended to draw a contrast between Congressional Democrats and Trump, who has left America's historic allies deeply unsettled, particularly by the unpredictability of his decisions such as surprise announcements of a drawdown of troops in Syria and Afghanistan and, over the weekend, a threat to release captured ISIS fighters if European allies don't accept them and put them on trial.

In Brussels, Pelosi and her delegation met NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and the EU's high representative for foreign policy, Federica Mogherini.

https://www.politico.eu/article/nancy-pelosi-to-europe-donald-trump-is-not-the-boss/
7
A quick, EZ and delicious breakfast for our Anniversary Day.  :icon_sunny:

While this is good, DO NOT MISS TONIGHT'S PREP OF THE KING CRAB!!!  Even if you don't watch any of my other cooking vids (and most of you don't) this one is one for the ages.  You won't believe it.  Really. LOL.

Alright, Promo done with, now let's eat breakfast.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZGBnoHlmWSs" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/ZGBnoHlmWSs</a>

RE
 
8
Surly Newz / Re: Who They Are...
« Last post by Eddie on Today at 07:17:19 AM »
Fake National Emergencies don't cut it. The American public must be turning into absolute morons to tolerate this bullshit.
9
Doomsteading / Re: The Adapters Movement 1 - In Four Parts
« Last post by Eddie on Today at 07:00:00 AM »
I call them the Four Horsemen of Collapse. We agree on the problem set. What we don't know is the timing, or which horseman will be the one that sends us over the edge from slow collapse, which is ongoing, to a more rapid collapse, which I do expect, but which I expect to take longer than most people think. It's still an unknown. No doubt we are close. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, as an old friend of mine used to say.

In earth time, human lives last a millisecond anyway. We are on a cusp. It could be ten minutes or ten years. It could be twenty, or even 30 years, before we spiral down to a more chaotic state of affairs. The handwriting is surely on the wall. It won't be 100 years. We don't have that much time left. But even 20 years gets very near the end of my productive life. It may be that I will be like Joshua leading my people to Canaan, but I will not pass over into the world they are going to inhabit.

Part of the problem here is that the error bars get increasingly bigger the longer you project out. Once you get to 20, 30 or 50 years, what you thought was clearly just a matter of "when not if" may become a matter of IF. Especially when the problem set is defined as broadly as "social destabilization" or something of that nature. 50-100 years from now, human beings may have evolved into something not even resembling human beings. Or we could be extinct. Or anything in between. Who knows.

The only "solution" I see to this problem of future predictions is metaphysics. One can theoretically get to first principles of Being itself which mandate a certain outcome in human history, or at least a certain direction.

As Bob Dylan once said, it doesn't take a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing.

The problem set is real. Collapse is real and ongoing. World leadership is making no positive efforts to solve anything whatsoever. To be optimistic is such a scenario is naive.

I'm not sure why "world leadership" needs to be very involved in most of the solutions. They often make many matters worse, prolong them and prevent real solutions from taking hold. The only problem which probably needs coordinated global action is global warming, but it doesn't seem anyone really knows what that action should look like. I have a harder time accepting the peak oil claims, because they have been made for decades now and in the meantime the US has become a net exporter of oil.

We need to be more specific when defining the problems of "financial collapse" or "social destabilization". What specifically are we talking about? I don't think most of the solutions for these issues can or should come from politicians.

Quote
But with that said, the last thing I want anyone to ever say about me is that I succumbed to despair while I still had fresh air and plenty to eat.

Agreed. If some theory or perspective of the world is leading you to complete nihilistic despair, then it is likely wrong or incomplete.

Quote
I'm agnostic about the possibilities of getting to First Principles through metaphysics, although I get the attraction. My own investigations into metaphysics have not been that productive, but I try to be open to anything that leads to increased understanding.

Lately I have been following cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman and his perception interface theory with great interest. I recommend you tubing him. He was first brought to my attention by Ka on this forum, but I didn't pay much attention to what he was saying. I recently rediscovered him and his theory has fascinating implications for metaphysical questions.

Will do.

I am excited about Utube Grad School. In spite of Google's many negatives, the possibilities for an inquiring individual to gain an education these
days are mind-boggling. It's just a bit intimidating trying to sort through it.
10
Doomsteading / Re: The Adapters Movement 1 - In Four Parts
« Last post by Eddie on Today at 06:40:36 AM »
I recommend more good coffee and less truth, early in the morning.

I haven't been reading Survival Acres but I'll put it on my list....not many good writers producing real collapse content these days. Burnout, depressions...or maybe just taking too long to suit some people who have bravely unplugged from the matrix and are living these interesting stories, while the rest of us continue to make our morning commute to our rat race jobs.

I do have one bone to pick. No lay person I ever met understands what a scientific theory is.

This is where theories then come into play. The evidence understood and examined “so far” means XYZ – or so we think.

This is closer than some, but not really quite right. What most lay people call a theory is what scientists call a hypothesis.

Theory to most people leaves room for a lot of disagreement. A theory, in science, means more than that. It has to fit every known fact, and is accepted as complete truth, just subject to revision by the emergence of future evidence.

The process of becoming a scientific theory

Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that doesn't fit into a currently accepted scientific theory. In other words, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

Tanner further explained that a scientific theory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don't change. Tanner likens theories to a basket in which scientists keep facts and observations that they find. The shape of that basket may change as the scientists learn more and include more facts. "For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact but the overarching theories about evolution, the way that we think all of the facts go together might change as new observations of evolution are made," Tanner told Live Science.
Theory basics

The University of California, Berkley, defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists' explanations and interpretations of the facts.

An important part of scientific theory includes statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton's theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.
The evolution of a scientific theory

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.

Some think that theories become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A law is a description of an observed phenomenon in the natural world that hold true every time it is tested. It doesn't explain why something is true; it just states that it is true. A theory, on the other hand, explains observations that are gathered during the scientific process. So, while law and theory are part of the scientific process, they are two very different aspects, according to the National Science Teachers Association.

A good example of the difference between a theory and a law is the case of Gregor Mendel. In his research, Mendel discovered that two separate genetic traits would appear independently of each other in different offspring. "Yet Mendel knew nothing of DNA or chromosomes. It wasn't until a century later that scientists discovered DNA and chromosomes — the biochemical explanation of Mendel's laws," said Peter Coppinger, an associate professor of biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. "It was only then that scientists, such as T.H. Morgan working with fruit flies, explained the Law of Independent Assortment using the theory of chromosomal inheritance. Still today, this is the universally accepted explanation (theory) for Mendel's Law."

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
 



It’s upsetting to realize that science doesn’t have all the answers – or even the best ideas.

Science doesn't make promises, people do. And there is enough godd science for anyone with half a brain to figure out what's going on. If there is some bad research out there (and there always has been, becaue research is paid for by somebody, and lots of somebody's have an agenda) then it is the responsibility of educated people to debunk it.

It's just that these days science has run headlong into a brick wall of obfuscation and denial. But you get the reality, as does the Survival Acres writer and a whole lot of other people. But the bad guys with the agendas and the money have so many good ways to hypnotize, lie, lay down false narratives and otherwise fill the whole space of MSM media and social media with pure crap that the average joe can't begin to filter it.

And....one other thing, and I think this is important. Humans are just animals who can talk. They aren't gods. To think that anybody,even the richest, most powerful, most connected people in the world have a chance in hell of doing anything to change the kind of seismic shift that's going on now, or are even responsible or somehow obligated to DO SOMETHING because they are (shudder) morally obligated?

That's giving humans way too much credit.

Technology overwhelms ordinary humans. My father, when he was a kid, rode to town on Saturday in a wagon propelled by a mule. It took all day to get there, conduct a little business and ride home. We aren't nearly evolved enough to begin to deal with the Pandora's Box we opened.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10