Re: No Wonder Kodak Went Broke ...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Whisky-dave, May 22, 2012.

  1. Whisky-dave

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On May 22, 12:45 am, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Dudley Hanks writes:
    > > In your mind...>

    >
    > Where else would I hold my opinion? In the refrigerator?


    That wouldn't suprise me :)

    >
    > > Either way, you are manipulated, either by emotion and
    > > those who know how to manipulate others via the emotional
    > > route, or by educators, and those who know how to manipulate
    > > others via curriculum and statistical manipulation

    >
    > No. If you make your decisions rationally and do your own research or
    > metaresearch, you are largely immune to manipulation.


    Most reasearch is based upon other evidence.
    Do you know what causes the clicking noise in a gieger counter ?
    or is it not a counter at you've been given.


    >
    > > I know more about the subject than you know or will admit.

    >
    > You cannot know what I know about the subject if, as you say, I have not
    > admitted it. There are other obstacles to accurately assessing my knowledge of
    > the subject, and I've exposed very little of what I know here.


    yes that;s obviuos at least now what was treh halgf life of uranium
    according to you,
    a 1000 times what it actually is, but maybe bilion was a type-o or a
    brain fart of a million.


    >
    > > Not according to evolution.

    >
    > Natural selection eliminates those who panic. That's why astronauts, fighter
    > pilots, etc., tend not to be prone to it.


    No it's because they are well trained to act in a particular way in a
    partuclar situation.
    As an example pilots are meant to steer clear of populated areas if
    tehy are going to make a crash or emergency landing
    this they are trained to do. Panicing would not help a figrter pilot
    to eject either.


    >
    > > Humans evolved by identifying risk via emotions, not analysis.

    >
    > No, human beings have died by failing to properly assess risk in favor of
    > inaccurate emotional speculation.
    > In fact, a very effective way to combat an
    > enemy is to arouse his emotions to the point that he ceases to make rational
    > decisions. He can then be manipulated into any desired type of behavior, even
    > self-destructive behavior.


    Not sure where you've got that idea from.

    >
    > You are simply speculating, also based on emotion.
    >
    > > The risk was identified by emotion, not intellect.

    >
    > Your own example contradicts this. Learning is not an emotional process.
    >
    > > The ability to conquor the challenge was accomplished through logic,
    > > not emotion.

    >
    > So was the decision to flee, since, as you yourself point out in mentioning
    > the man's assessment of the size, power, and agility of a predator.


    yes the sensible flee, inteligence and emotion rule.


    > > There is room for both.

    >
    > Emotions are harmless enough in themselves, but they are an extremely poor
    > basis for most decision-making.


    Depending on the decision, we eat some things and not others baseed on
    an emotion
    that we might not understand at the time.

    >
    > > Obviously, I have thought about this more than you have.

    >
    > If that were true, you would not resort to personal attacks instead of
    > reasoned argument.
    >
    > > As usual, you seem to have it backasswords.

    >
    > See above.
    Whisky-dave, May 22, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Whisky-dave

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On May 24, 7:56 pm, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Whisky-dave writes:
    > > yes that;s obviuos at least now what was treh halgf life of uranium
    > > according to you,
    > > a 1000 times what it actually is, but maybe bilion was a type-o or a
    > > brain fart of  a million.

    >
    > No. Uranium 238 has a half-life of slightly less than 4.5 billion years.
    > Uranium 235 has a half-life of a little over 700 million years.
    >
    > Incidentally, the longer the half-life of an isotope, the less radioactive it
    > tends to be over a given amount of time. For this reason, uranium is only
    > weakly radioactive, and its hazard to people is correspondingly low. Plus,
    > it's everywhere, even in dirt, and especially in many types of rocks.


    which is also why throium reactors aren;t teh preferred but plutonium
    fast
    breedes were because they could produce weapons grade plutonium for
    nuclear weaons
    that;s teh reason the relatively risk nuclear reactors were build in
    favour of the less dangerous ones.


    >
    > > No it's because they are well trained to act in a particular way in a
    > > partuclar situation.

    >
    > They are not simply well trained. They also have personalities that are devoid
    > of emotion in safety-of-life situations.


    i.e training.

    > That's something that you can't
    > really train into a person completely.


    You can in some but obviously not everyone otherwise eveyone could be
    a fighter pilot.


    > > Not sure where you've got that idea from.

    >
    > History and psychology. Once a person is emotional, you just tell him the
    > right things and he'll do whatever you want.


    Which is meaningless.
    Whisky-dave, May 25, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Whisky-dave

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On May 25, 3:45 pm, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Whisky-dave writes:
    > > which is also why throium reactors aren;t teh preferred but plutonium
    > > fast
    > > breedes were because they could produce weapons grade plutonium for
    > > nuclear weaons
    > > that;s teh reason the relatively risk nuclear reactors were build in
    > > favour of the less dangerous ones.

    >
    > The advantages of breeder reactors are far better fuel economy and less
    > long-term radioactive wastes. Unfortunately, emotional environmentalists and
    > other fear-directed people have interfered with their development,


    Are you sure about that, if what you say is true then arebn;t more
    thorium based reactors being built.

    > along with
    > market and other forces.


    other forces can be quite strong.

    >
    > > i.e training.

    >
    > No, personality. Some people are naturally calm and unemotional.


    Psychotic murders tend to be un emotainal it's part of their MO.

    >They perform
    > well in urgent and dangerous situations.


    No they do not, otherwise you'd have them in teh army rather than
    trained pros.

    >
    > > Which is meaningless.

    >
    > Not to those who use these methods to manipulate large populations.
    Whisky-dave, May 28, 2012
    #3
  4. Whisky-dave

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On May 28, 4:17 pm, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Whisky-dave writes:
    > > Are you sure about that, if what you say is true then arebn;t more
    > > thorium based reactors being built.

    >
    > Environmentalists are opposed to breeder reactors,


    Thoriumn aren't fast breeder reactors.

    > they might make it easier to produce weapons-grade plutonium for bombs.


    But they don;t.

    >
    > > Psychotic murders tend to be un emotainal it's part of their MO.

    >
    > So?


    You;d understand uif you'd left the text in.
    You were trying to say that unimaotional peolpe judged things better
    than emotional people,
    well they don't.

    >
    > > No they do not, otherwise you'd have them in teh army rather than
    > > trained pros.

    >
    > I don't understand.


    exactly.

    Unimotional people aren;t the peak of humanity like you seem to thnk.
    You wouldn't want unimotianl people to be in charge of anything.
    Whisky-dave, May 29, 2012
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Martin Brown

    Re: [O/T] No Wonder Kodak Went Broke ...

    Martin Brown, May 14, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    429
    Joe Kotroczo
    May 18, 2012
  2. Martin Brown

    Re: [O/T] No Wonder Kodak Went Broke ...

    Martin Brown, May 14, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    349
    Martin Brown
    May 17, 2012
  3. PeterN

    Re: [O/T] No Wonder Kodak Went Broke ...

    PeterN, May 21, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    401
    PeterN
    May 21, 2012
  4. Martin Brown

    Re: [O/T] No Wonder Kodak Went Broke ...

    Martin Brown, May 21, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    393
    Martin Brown
    May 21, 2012
  5. Whisky-dave

    Re: No Wonder Kodak Went Broke ...

    Whisky-dave, May 22, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    254
    Whisky-dave
    May 30, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page