Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Im sorry, but SOME of this does help..
Ever smell that NEW CAR scent?
Walk into a store and smell FRESH HOME MADE COOKIES?
Walk into a Toilet and small CLOROX or PINESOL??
Appears ‘religious bollock’ circle is missing items that are assigned to other hairball groups (ie. ghosts, levitation,..)
This needs to be revised.
It’s all religion if you believe it without supporting objective evidence.
e.g. The urge to hire DRs has to be a religion because if objective evidence was important to the believers, they would try to hire someone else.
+1
“…the urge to hire DR’s has to be a religion…”
DR as in Doctor? I still don’t get it. Can you translate this for someone outside the bubble? Really, I’d like to understand your point.
DRs are the same as RDs. Does that help? And don’t feel bad; most people are outside of the bubble.
Got it. Relational Database Services.
Yes, you make terrific sense. I think your headphone is on too tight.
“Scientology”! Lol
Scientology certainly deserves the throne as a leader in each category.
They left out Keynesian Economics.
You meant, they left out Reaganomics, the pseudo-intellectual “supply-side” economics that is a cover for the trickle-down B.S.
The story or lie Reagan told about giving tax breaks and/or other economic benefits to businesses and the wealthy will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole from the “crumbs” falling from the tables of the wealthy!
The actual path of money in a private enterprise economy is the opposite of that claimed by people who refer to the trickle-down theory! A growing economy leads to wealth creation, and not the other way.
The distinguished economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted “trickle-down economics” had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name “horse and sparrow theory.” The older and less elegant generation that named “supply-side” the horse-and-sparrow theory, because; ‘If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'” The horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896.
Interesting.
“Horse & Sparrow.”
I hadn’t heard of that one in years. (You don’ wanna be the sparrow. All you get to eat is horse shit… :-))
The supply-siders tend to be Repubes, despite the fact that a history lesson shows that supply-siders have never contributed a damn thing. They just enrich themselves at the expense of everybody else. (If the supply-siders had been in power, we’d still be operating phones by turning the crank and waiting for Ma-bel to run the cable. They are always behing the curve, by definition…)
Supply-side economics is a bankrupt ideology, just like communism.
The idea is not that prosperity trickles down, but that you first have to produce something before it can be purchased. You want to maximize incentives towards the production.
I see now why you’re confused.
There isn’t a production problem, there’s a consumption problem.
Tell that to the workers who are seeing their hours cut because of Obamacare.
Yes, it’s all crap, all of it. Thanks to Science! We already know everything there is to know. New ideas should be seen as akin to witchcraft, and we should burn all of the heretics at the stake.
You must be the “smartest” dude in the world to say “Thanks to Science! We already know everything there is to know.” If you believe that, really you are truly asking for a rude troublesome awakening!
But as they say, the ignorant have earned their troubles.
Are there any reputable persons claiming “We already know everything there is to know!”? NO!
So why are you?
I’ll spell it out for you..I was being sarcastic.
As stated below I saw that possibility.
Was given Joan the “Well Said” also sarcasm?
And if you claim lumens sufficient to support sarcasm, why no direct response to challenges you have received?
Looks like 1 + 1 = 1.45, if you know what I mean?
Thanks to Science we already know everything there is to know.
You’ve just proved that you don’t understand the very first thing about science.
Science is a formal process for questioning the world around you.
There is literally nothing to thank science for…
The best we can be thankful for is for the light of research pushing back the shadows of our ignorance.
Children from two parent families who are devote do a lot better in school than those that aren’t. While I suppose parents that aren’t could engage in the behaviors that are believed to produce the positive results in practice they don’t nor do they have the extended positive family support group that the devote are taking advantage off. Please note that I didn’t ascribe the benefits to a signal denomination or even religion. The people that did the studies were looking at what promoted the rearing of successful children and they found it with the devote.
Although this diagram may be exaggerating a bit, let’s not forget that scientology stems from a science fuction writer and that most of the things in this diagram have been shown to have at best a placebo effect. Couple that with the concept that religion is the opiate for the masses you then see that this diagram is a reflection not only of the present mentality of the average person but of the past as well.
Bravo Comrade Vladimir Lenin, “religion is the opiate for the masses”
Comrade what do you call the mass killings by your communist acolytes??
What, you don’t believe communist acolytes are history’s most murderous zealots?
You assume to much. I use the quote to further the meaning of the diagram. Nothing more. The fact that you take such offense and make such an overly dramatic statemant then hide behind anonymity reveals much about you.
Oh Doctor, wise sage and obvious man of knowledge and insight, please tell me more of this wondrous and great reveal you have of me!
I would be delighted to test the shallows of this insight you have!
Please treat me to it!
I know it would be fun, just judging by your grand Insight, command of concepts and Modest Claim into the “average” persons mentality both in the past and present: “Couple that with the concept that religion is the opiate for the masses you then see that this diagram is a reflection not only of the present mentality of the average person but of the past as well.”
But should I protest much, then please; let me continue my protest!
Let the jousting begin!
You reveal even more.
Ever the transparent droll, yet you revel nothing yet ever ironic!
Oh do please be the cleaver and repeat yourself!
“Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong”
–Jean-Jacques Rousseau
The quote is from Marx, not Lenin.
Actually the Marx quote is “Die Religion … ist das Opium des Volkes”
The full quote from Karl Marx is: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people”.==giving the expression almost the opposite meaning of the shortened one without context.
I love context.
Be careful, context can be a cruel mistress.
In her delight, she will inflict pain.
You think of her as a pleasure, no wine can bring.
You bare your heart, she stings with utter distress.
The draw is insanity, the pain more then a bee, the destruction lasting.
Most Excellent Find. Well worth a poster.
Scientology at the center and singular? Have to spend some time and think about what else would fit there. I don’t follow scientology much beyond skimming the first paragraph of most articles–less if it starts with Tom Cruise. First time I heard of it was by way of a “religion that was started by a science fiction writer” and it has always struck me that Hubbard started this religion as a joke or an express con and must have been surprised at its success? How often could it be done?
Should Bill Gates secretly fund one whacky religion per year, each much like Scientology, or Dianetics, or E, or whatever until the marketplace sees the stupidity and the whole Special Needs House of Cards collapses in a blast of the obvious?
Chiropractic is legitimate science. Lots of people commit fraud regarding cancer cures but cancer is still real. Same with chiropratic. Maybe its in a Medical Science circle in another dimension?====>hmmm, I can see its definitional on what inclusion in any given circle means? Abuse and misuse can put anything into any of those circles?
I had one “out of body experience” but it was of a non-religious nature and I’ve never been religious. I mark it down to brain chemistry, alcohol, and hormones. Nice trick of the mind “to look down on one’s self from above.” Never made it outside the room though.
You lost me on, “Chiropractic is legitimate science. Lots of people commit fraud regarding cancer cures but cancer is still real. Same with chiropractic. ”
WTF!
Where the data, and not some one-off anecdotal you got to believe evidence B.S!
What is this increadable mechanism, that a spinal adjustment can reproducibly cure cancer?
Would it hold up to the scrutiny of a double blind test?
Didn’t Steve Job once try the sure fire chiropractic kills cancer cures?
Is the “Science Man” keeping your chiropractic quack down?
On Noooooooo! Read it again. Is it not CLEAR that I’m making fun of the bone breaker thinking the School from Iowa can cure any cancer at all?
Do I suffer from the same disease as Marcus???===Do I need an adjustment?
In its “best” formulation, chiropractic is just physical therapy/rehab in the context of non-physician directed therapy……. and its not anecdotal assuming anything except spine related maladies remain on the table….
True, I didn’t catch your sneer at Chiropractors as doctors.
whew!!! You had me worried.
Sarcasm is best fresh and still dripping.
Past life regression, feng shui, or QI?
Modern chiropractics is far from the fraud of it’s early days. I meet many chiropractors, and I don’t see any claiming, as their predecessors did, that all disease comes from conditions of the spine. What I see are a lot of people, including myself, out of pain, discomfort, and imbalance. By imbalance, I mean literal, physical imbalances, such as not being able to walk straight, or put food in the mouth without conscious attention to here the fork is.
I’m down with the rest being mostly fraud, and, yet, many alternative medical treatments are far more in tune with the patient than what western medical practices. I see a naturopath not because I believe everything she says about medicine, but that she takes time to listen, and asks questions about things that I would not have thought to consider. They see human beings as people, not subjects to be prodded and investigated and otherwise ignored.
When my first wife was constantly sick, her doctors put her on all sorts of medications, including some that were used for cancer treatments and made her more sick. We took her to a naturopath who asked the right questions and spent a lot of time with her. It was a month later, armed with new knowledge, that we got a diagnosis of MS from our healthcare provider. 15 years later and she’s still alive, where she might not have lived another year without that diagnosis and the newer, lifesaving treatments available to MS patients.
Yeap. I very fondly recall talking with the County’s Top Chiropracter wanting staff privileges. He echoed your comment that it was a shame their profession was tarnished by the excessive unsupported claims.
As he said: “We can’t actually cure all types of cancer.”
and I swear to God——–I almost had another out of body experience.
Ahem? May I draw an error to what has already been diagrammed for us?
The Venn is of “Irrational Bullocks.” I even posted that I disagree or lay claim to or support two of the listed items, but I take NO OFFENSE in staking out my position.
Who WOULD take offense at such a Venn Diagram? So far, we know people can withstand 1 or 2 assaults on their imaginary intellectual life.
I assume most those who disagree actually get upset over one item only? Thats all it takes for a trigger finger to involuntarily knee jerk. (Who knew the finger had a knee joint?) Ha, ha. Not to DEVOLVE again, but where might NRA Gun Nutery show up on this chart???? “Guns don’t kill people, only people kill people.” That sounds like mostly Quackery to me? Maybe Pseudoscienctific as well as in not understanding the necessary but not sufficient chain of causation?
But I ramble.
So many devotees of science. Who would have thunk it?
UIhhh, how can I put this politely? Doesn’t 50% of NA believe in
a lot of this stuff?
Marcus in his magnificently un self aware non responsiveness says:
3/27/2013 at 5:44 pm
I’m certain /// Yes, I’m sure you are certain about just about everything. Are you uncertain about anything?
if we were in a room discussing this, you wouldn’t act like an ass. /// You assume so much. In context, you assume you can post just as ONLY an idiot would do, but to be called on it makes that person an ass? Ok……but have you considered your own initiating stimulus? “I’m certain you haven’t given that a thought….. at all.”
But I get it, its easy to insult people when there are no repercussions. /// The repercussion as stated is for you to prove me wrong. OH THE HORROR—to learn something I think is wrong. Who could withstand such a thing?
Cowards all. /// Cowards? Ha, ha.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Now, dumbshit==let me ask you this, and have you answer???===How would you characterize someone who walks into a room and says: “Yes, it’s all crap, all of it. Thanks to Science! We already know everything there is to know. New ideas should be seen as akin to witchcraft, and we should burn all of the heretics at the stake.” /// Yes, I agree it can be read one way, and at the same time, exactly the other way…so I passed on that failure of clarity. But you gave explanation when given Joans idiocy a “well said.” I said +1 because I always carry a sear from any post that Liberty Lover makes. I’m too wrong and sloppy like that too often. Just as I quoted in error this thread as “Irrational Bullocks” rather than accurately as “Irrational Nonsense.” The ideas are close, but not accurate.
To your irrelevant and non-responsive point….would I call someone an idiot if they pronounced that science was crap? Probably not. I rarely talk to idiots. Thats why I come to a forum.
In expected conclusion: what belief system posted do you think is outrageous to be there…or what defense do you have for your anti-science no nothing and proud of it position?
I’m sure for the various perverse reasons that there are, many are holding their breath (not) for your detailed and cogent response.
Just face it you missed the OBVIOUS sarcasm, and made yourself look like an ass, noname did the same. I think you just like to pick fights.
You truly believed I think everything is known and people with new ideas should be burned at the stake. Sheesh.
There was nothing inherently wrong with Joan expressing her opinion and I thought she did it well, whether I agreed with it or not. But you are itching to denegrate anyone with an opinion other than your own.
Just fucking sad dude.
Marcus, the idiot who won’t take a free clue or respond to a direct question continues to pirouette as if spinning will confuse the puff adder at his throat says:
3/27/2013 at 6:37 pm
Just face it you missed the OBVIOUS sarcasm, /// how did I miss it when I FIRST made reference to the fact that it could be the cause of your failure of clarity?
and made yourself look like an ass, noname did the same. /// Or, for those who think the Venn Diagram is pretty damn accurate, KNIGHTS in Shining Armor.
I think you just like to pick fights. /// Of course I do. And I’m good at it. Just like YOU—-except for the outcome.
You truly believed I think everything is known and people with new ideas should be burned at the stake. Sheesh. /// Explain your “Well Said” to Joan.
There was nothing inherently wrong with Joan expressing her opinion /// Yes, there was as amply demonstrated with the challenge to youl
and I thought she did it well, /// No, it did not. As stated to you it was all generalities based on a straw man.
whether I agreed with it or not. /// But that is the whole point. A defective argument possibly but RARELY can be well said.
But you are itching to denegrate anyone with an opinion other than your own. /// Not true. I denigrate everyone. Also laud quite a few. See Patso for chiding me for being illiterate. I LOVE THAT. Corrections make me a better person. I will go to the grave remembering to be taut with my elocution. Still room to taunt.
Just fucking sad dude. /// Ooooohhh. I’m certain that if we were in a room conversing that you wouldn’t stoop to being so crude and vulgar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not withstanding that and your sarcasm—what exactly is your position now? The Venn Diagram is Accurate??? So you agree with the post and sadly are NOT well stated?
Ha, ha. You might take away from this thread the notion that sarcasm does not come across well over the internet???? Or not. I’m certain–you say whatever you want to and fail to defend your positions on a number of different and varying BS equivocations.
Be Direct.
Be Honest.
Its like chocolate in Milk.
noname TAUNTING my desire to denigrate all, but only those deserving, says:
3/27/2013 at 8:09 pm
Oh Doctor, wise sage and obvious man of knowledge and insight, please tell me more of this wondrous and great reveal you have of me! //// Hah!!! How many times must Marcus be slapped in the face with the Glove of Truth, not respond, and be asked again to engage? Hope helpless against History.
I would be delighted to test the shallows of this insight you have! /// I recall the aphorism that the depths of your lake of insight gets more shallow the farther out I wade….but memory fails to recall the exact wording.
Please treat me to it! /// The tumor won’t respond, nor the organ he attached himself to. More like that Sea Lamprey posted a while back….. without the teeth.
I know it would be fun, just judging by your grand Insight, command of concepts and Modest Claim into the “average” persons mentality both in the past and present: “Couple that with the concept that religion is the opiate for the masses you then see that this diagram is a reflection not only of the present mentality of the average person but of the past as well.” /// Is any current representation meant to be timeless/universal unless expressly stated so?
But should I protest much, then please; let me continue my protest!
Let the jousting begin! /// Well, its amusing. The achilles heel of so many otherwise intelligent posters here, ((Kinda like Uncle Joe Stalin too, it strikes me))===>the inability to laugh at one’s self, admit an error, correct it, and go forward a better man.
How come that hardly ever happens?
“How come that hardly ever happens?” because it does.
Isn’t there a filter for this bullshit?
Yes, it’s call a book!
My what a cute way to express your opinions.
Is there a “Venn diagram for Rational Nonsense?” You know, for skewering “sciences” like economics, sociology, etc?
Is there such a thing as “Rational Nonsense”?
Have you looked through academic journals in the last 10 years? There is a LOT of “Rational Nonsense.”
I guess.
One mans Rational Nonsense is another mans grant application.
noname in a surprising and wondeful change of pace says:
3/28/2013 at 7:04 pm
Be careful, context can be a cruel mistress. /// Context in relevant part can only mean the truth. If the truth is “cruel” then you need a little bit more existentialism in your life. Its like choclate milk.
In her delight, she will inflict pain.
You think of her as a pleasure, no wine can bring.
You bare your heart, she stings with utter distress.
The draw is insanity, the pain more then a bee, the destruction lasting. //// Very nice poetry. But it doesn’t sound like its about context. Reread x3. Well, easiest read is as usual.. love. Could it be love this cruel mistress? I don’t know how the draw could be insanity, but if the context is heroin, I don’t know how or why you would bare your heart to it. A vein… yes. Maybe thats close enough???
Some come here to sit and think,
some come here to shit and stink.
Often I come here to scratch my balls
And read all the bullshit on the walls.
“Very nice poetry. But it doesn’t sound like its about context.”
Why not and what makes that so?
Gee nogame==I said why in my first sentence. Too much CONTEXT for you? Ha, ha. A pat on nogame’s forehead, assuming he has one.
From bright star to riding Pedro’s donkey in one short post?
Can I provide more context, analysis? Let’s Fisk together:
In her delight, she will inflict pain. /// Ok, trying to place an idea, fact pattern, argument into its proper context can be difficult. A delight when found and experienced, thinking can be described as painful when the answer doesn’t easily come or comes not at all. FIRST LINE FITS.
You think of her as a pleasure, no wine can bring. /// Calling the search for the proper CONTEXT is not most properly thought of as a pleasure. It is an intellectual necessity, a restriction in what might be more pleasurable to too many: thinking whatever you want to. Wine in its temporary out of the box/uncorked thinking about an issue helps on occasion but then CONTEXT has to be soberly established. So, the first half of the line kinda half way fits, the second half does fit, so….LINE TWO FITS.
You bare your heart, she stings with utter distress. /// Starting to go off track now. How is the heart bared when one is trying to understand an issue? One bares on heart in psychotherapy or in return to anothers…two limited more emotional endeavors compared to the intellectual application of finding CONTEXT. Regardless of the effort it can take, those who engage in the search will find CONTEXT quite often once they understand its function. Not much stinging going on. THIRD LINE IS A FAIL.
The draw is insanity, the pain more then a bee, the destruction lasting. /// This a a total fail in each section. The draw of finding CONTEXT, is learning and understanding. There is no bee sting. The destruction of failing to find the proper CONTEXT(S) is not lasting. You just try again until you find it.
CONTEXT is not a cruel mistress.
If you haven’t noticed bobbo, I don’t Fisk, that’s your job.
I didn’t know bobbo was a scientologist.
A very helpful diagram.
While I agree with the intersection of all four “orbits”, and many of those of only two or three intersections. I wouldn’t be comfortable of labeling everything, isolated, in their own orbits as “bollock”. Besides that, I seem to see some things missing from the “Pseudo-scientific Bollocks” orbit. Such as Polygraphs, for one. Never proven or validated scientifically. And yet, a few Federal security agencies appear to believe in them. Even though they’ve never caught a single spy, with a polygraph test. It’s more of a badgering tool, to keep people in line. Kind of like IRS audits. Useless for uncovering the multi-million dollar tax cheats (an audit never caught Burnie Madoff). But screw with the govt., slave, and you’ll get one on your minimum wage income. So maybe “IRS Audits” should also be added to that orbit.
Obviously some british atheist designed this Venn diagram, because of the Turin Shroud & Intelligent Design, being snuck in there. I notice that neither Global Warming, or Global Warming Denial, didn’t make the orbit. Gutless? And really, shouldn’t “Life in Space” be another? When they’re yet to be a single shred of evidence of any, other than on earth. But scientists, just keep on “believing”. It’s their form of religious faith, and therefore valid, only because they say so. But they’ve got no more to back it up, than any Biblical scholars do of God. Actually the archeological evidence of ancient earth, is more on the Bible scholar’s side. And it didn’t cost the tax payers tens of millions of dollars, to find this “evidence”. The way it has for NASA to keep searching for life on other planets. Hoping to prove what? That Darwin wasn’t just an atheist crackpot? Who knew nothing of actual genetics. And couldn’t explain how an eyeball could evolve, over thousands of generations, from useless to useful organ. Seems to me that “Evolution” deserves a “Bullocks” position, just as much as “Intelligent Design”. It’s not a real Theory either, since I can’t be tested. A Hypothesis, at best.
“Global Warming Hysteria” is missing.