It's my God given right to protect myself from your diseased ugly face.
Actually, it's not. It's your God given right to hide in your home if you choose and wear a mask if you choose. It's not your right to make the world change because you are miseducated.
Seriously though, I think for a lot of people, they just don't care about much, or what they are doing. A lot of people simply refuse to think.
I am a white supremacist and don't see it as a bad thing. You're missing my point. If someone is going disrespect me and get too close to me while not wearing a mask, I have no respect for them and will behave accordingly. Regardless of their skin color or whatever country they migrated from.
HusTler
A white supremacist living in a predominantly black neighbourhood in
NYC. The irony.
On 09-21-20 21:41, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Precaution is the elimination of the source of risk, which is sometimes valid, sometimes not. This is the approach I think is being taken.
Risk Management is acceptence of risk, and balancing the cost of controlling it, with the benefits of whatever activity is resulting in risk. (ie, balancing the economy with control of the virus).
The problem is, that the 'precautionary' approach can bypass a cost/benefit analysis, and even bypass the analysis of other ways to manage risk. If you commit to ZERO cases, it drops other things off
your radar. You lose sight of a sustainable plan, of focusing efforts where they count.
I do this professionally, and I see the same problems at work.
Sometimes, I think people make decisions so they can sleep better at night, and load the cost to others.
Risk Management would have identified those most vulnerable, the areas
which pose the greatest risk, and selectively controlled those areas.
The hotel quarantine was a failure in part because the government was taking the precautionary approach, banking on an ALL OUT elimination.
They didn't properly direct resources. So we had police busting people for getting a donut at 3AM, while known cases were walking around
because private security guards were considered sufficient. We've seen
the virus go through old-age homes, the last place you want it. The precautionary approach that Dan is taking has demonstrably failed. But people want the "hardest" approach, thinking that the harder you go,
the better the results. But it doesn't work that way.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 09-21-20 21:41, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Precaution is the elimination of the source of risk, which is sometimes valid, sometimes not. This is the approach I think is being taken.
Risk Management is acceptence of risk, and balancing the cost of controlling it, with the benefits of whatever activity is resulting in risk. (ie, balancing the economy with control of the virus).
The question that seems to be sidestepped here is "acceptable risk"
(i.e. where do you draw the line?).
The problem is, that the 'precautionary' approach can bypass a cost/benefit analysis, and even bypass the analysis of other ways to manage risk. If you commit to ZERO cases, it drops other things off
your radar. You lose sight of a sustainable plan, of focusing efforts where they count.
I can see the problem there.
I do this professionally, and I see the same problems at work.
Sometimes, I think people make decisions so they can sleep better at night, and load the cost to others.
My risk management is done in more real time life or death situations, often where significant aspects are beyond our immediate control -
think bushfires, etc. :) But I am more confident in our understanding
of bushfires, their behaviour and their various effects, than I am
about COVID. :) But our understanding of the virus is improving
steadily.
Risk Management would have identified those most vulnerable, the areas
I've already pointed out that there are chronic effects which are
serious, but not subject to the same probabilities as the much more publicised acute effects, and from there one has to consider the
physical and mental health of those chronic cases, along with the additional cost to the healthcare system (and the economy, because
they're probably not working to their capacity).
The thing I don't like about this bug is all those unknowns that a lot
of people overlook.
which pose the greatest risk, and selectively controlled those areas.
I definitely agree when it comes to controlling high risk areas and situations - transmission charateristics seem to be better understood
now.
The hotel quarantine was a failure in part because the government was taking the precautionary approach, banking on an ALL OUT elimination.
They didn't properly direct resources. So we had police busting people for getting a donut at 3AM, while known cases were walking around
because private security guards were considered sufficient. We've seen
There seems to be a lot of links in that particular chain, including
some obscure bits of government policy that shouldn't have been used in
a critical part of pandemic management.
the virus go through old-age homes, the last place you want it. The precautionary approach that Dan is taking has demonstrably failed. But people want the "hardest" approach, thinking that the harder you go,
the better the results. But it doesn't work that way.
I agree we could have done it better, and we can still improve.
A white supremacist living in a predominantly black neighbourhood in NYC. Th irony.
if you did it the way you are stating here, you would end up getting your as
kicked or being on some youtube video as a white supremacist. i hope you're
being tactful.
I am a white supremacist and don't see it as a bad thing.
A white supremacist living in a predominantly black neighbourhood in NYC. Th
irony.
If you don't think the blacks are racist you have another thing coming.
to me while not wearing a mask, I have no respect for them and will
behave accordingly. Regardless of their skin color or whatever country
they migrated from.
HusTler
A white supremacist living in a predominantly black neighbourhood in NYC. The irony.
On 09-22-20 22:21, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
The question that seems to be sidestepped here is "acceptable risk"
(i.e. where do you draw the line?).
Hard to say, but its a cost/benefit analysis. I see too many people pointing out to me that Dans lockdown IS working. But they are
neglecting the aspect of cost. Sure, it works. Locking people down to reduce crime also works. But solutions must be weighed against their cost. People are not considering cost AT ALL.
If you only look at effectiveness, without the cost, you lead towards
some awful situations.
Acceptable risk is having a low chance of contracting the virus, which
is comparable to any other virus. For me, if I'm just at risk of
catching Coronavirus as the Flu, that is acceptable. For older people, the risk profile changes, so THEY should take more precautions, and
those who are in contact with them.
Essentially when you believe you don't have to face a risk, you don't prepare for it. For example, parents who instead of teaching their children how to handle the world "out there", simply don't let them
out. They may be safer, but its a false sense of safety.
In such cases, you have to make decisions very quickly, so its a little different to me where I can usually analyse. My philosophy when it
comes to having to make quick decisions is to consider what can and
can't be undone as a result of your decision.
Your general health seems to be an important factor. It's odd that
people are not being urged to ensure they keep themselves healthy.
There seems to be a lot of links in that particular chain, including
some obscure bits of government policy that shouldn't have been used in
a critical part of pandemic management.
Such as botched training. I didn't understand why they just left it to subcontractors. That way a real 'facepalm' moment for me. I have to ensure that people do their job correctly as part of my job, and I
would never consider in a million years managing it the way they did.
We can maintain a comparible level of safety, without the same level of economic and social cost. In fact, we could INCREASE safety.
Remember, lockdowns and financial ruin also cost lives, and shorten lifespans. I don't advocate we all get it, but I think we can loosen up
in some areas, tighten in others. However, I see little impetus to do
so. Dan I think wants to make sure he can sleep soundly at night.
HusTler wrote to Dr. What <=-
I'm not asking the world to change. I'm just asking your ignorant diseased ass to stay the fuck away from me.
A white supremacist living in a predominantly black neighbourhood in NYC.Th
irony.
If you don't think the blacks are racist you have another thing coming.
HusTler
well i dont think there's anything wrong with it as long as you are concerned with the improvement of your own 'race' and you arent concerned with harming others.
malcolm x was a black supremacist.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 09-22-20 22:21, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
The question that seems to be sidestepped here is "acceptable risk"
(i.e. where do you draw the line?).
Hard to say, but its a cost/benefit analysis. I see too many people pointing out to me that Dans lockdown IS working. But they are
neglecting the aspect of cost. Sure, it works. Locking people down to reduce crime also works. But solutions must be weighed against their cost. People are not considering cost AT ALL.
My view is we don't know the true costs of the virus.
If you only look at effectiveness, without the cost, you lead towards
some awful situations.
True, and we have seen some of those, particularly with regards to
border closures.
Acceptable risk is having a low chance of contracting the virus, which
is comparable to any other virus. For me, if I'm just at risk of
catching Coronavirus as the Flu, that is acceptable. For older people, the risk profile changes, so THEY should take more precautions, and
those who are in contact with them.
I disagree on the "comparable to any other virus". In my case, flu is
a poor comparison, because I seem to be highly resistant to catching
flu in the first case, and if I do, it's _much_ less severe than it is
for anyone else (typically a few days vs weeks).
And again, you're only considering the acute risk, not the chronic risk profile, which is less well known, but doesn't appear to be as
dependent on age. The latest I've heard is a possible link to COVID
and Parkinsons. Both have loss of sense of small as an early symptom. Parkinsons is apparently related to inflammation of the brain, which happens to be something that COVID can cause.
I feel the chronic risk may be higher than people are saying, and the costs, both personal and economic could much more than we think.
Problem is we really won't know the chronic effects for years to
decades.
Essentially when you believe you don't have to face a risk, you don't prepare for it. For example, parents who instead of teaching their children how to handle the world "out there", simply don't let them
out. They may be safer, but its a false sense of safety.
On that, I agree with you. Children do need to experience risk in controlled settings.
In such cases, you have to make decisions very quickly, so its a little different to me where I can usually analyse. My philosophy when it
And I may have to change that decision quickly, in the light of
changing circumstances.
comes to having to make quick decisions is to consider what can and
can't be undone as a result of your decision.
That is part of our so-called "Dynamic Risk Assessment" process.
Your general health seems to be an important factor. It's odd that
people are not being urged to ensure they keep themselves healthy.
Also, apparently less so for chronic effects, but yes, I agree that everyone should keep themselves as healthy as possible (in my book,
that's regardless of whether there's a pandemic!).
There seems to be a lot of links in that particular chain, including
some obscure bits of government policy that shouldn't have been used in
a critical part of pandemic management.
Such as botched training. I didn't understand why they just left it to subcontractors. That way a real 'facepalm' moment for me. I have to ensure that people do their job correctly as part of my job, and I
would never consider in a million years managing it the way they did.
Botched training, and even trying to be "inclusive" for such a critical job. I would have been a bit more pedantic about having the best
people, with the best possible training. I was like WTF?
economic and social cost. In fact, we could INCREASE safety.
Remember, lockdowns and financial ruin also cost lives, and shorten lifespans. I don't advocate we all get it, but I think we can loosen up
in some areas, tighten in others. However, I see little impetus to do
so. Dan I think wants to make sure he can sleep soundly at night.
Well, my first inclination is to gather information. Given the bigger case loads overseas, that's one place to look, as well as doing
research here to see how many of those who contracted COVID went on to develop long term issues, and get some better numbers.
We also need to understnad "super spreaders" better. Those events are another unknown. It seems not everyone spreads the virus equally.
How, can we better prevent those super spreading events, with minimum disruption to life, the economy, etc?
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: MRO to Andeddu on Tue Sep 22 2020 05:49 pm
well i dont think there's anything wrong with it as long as you are
concerned with the improvement of your own 'race' and you arent
concerned with harming others.
malcolm x was a black supremacist.
A white supremacist is someone who thinks they are superior to other people because of the colour of their skin. I believe you are describing white nationalism. Hustler described himself as a white supremacist.
On 09-24-20 00:48, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
The trend I see is that people over-estimate the risk and over time,
the actual impact is less than what people think. Note, this is a
trend, not an absolute rule. I would expect there to be a heightened
sense of risk and danger, which means people look for, and notice the longer term effects. Note that the flu also can result in long term effects of 6 months of more, and for those with existing complications, can lead to further complications to be managed. This isn't to say COVID-19 isn't a problem, but the concerns are not as unique as people think. My point is really we accepted this in the past. We accepted
the flu, the deaths from it, the long term complications. These were
not justifications to clamp down on freedom, withhold basic civil liberties and ruin hundreds of thousands of people econimically and
cause long term financial, social and political damage. This is what
irks me, that we have accepted control at any price, without what I believe is solid reasoning.
Again, I believe that extra controls are necessary, but the language,
the rhetoric, the reasoning is all off-kilter and often arbitrary, emotional and reactionary, and this won't yield good results. There
are so many vested interests pushing a particular view, its hard to
work out the truth.
Joe Rogan often makes the very good point that it is odd that this is lacking in official communication. We've heard endless details about
the hotel quarantine saga, but why isn't there as part of the education campaign, making people aware of how important their health and
nutrition is. Worse still, where excercise and outdoor activities
would HELP, we are locked in. I generally go for long walks late at
night which is when I have the time, and now I can't, and I've noticed
my health decline as a result. With young kids and a full time desk
job, that is really my only opportunity to fit a reasonable size one
in. So now the government is helping to DETERIORATE my wellbeing.
I can imagine how it works, as I deal with such beaurocracy all the
time. Let me guess, many high level, legalistic sounding policy
documents written by people justifying their position and little
practical guidance?
There are many people in the public sector (and even private sector
where it comes to regulatory/compliance roles), whose mode of operation
is more based on producing information which ticks expected checkboxes based on the judgement of others, than in producing a materially
positive result. That is to say, opinion and policy dictate results, rather than the actual material, objective outcomes.
This is an advatage that private enterprise can have, in that the
people involved can make the direct, material outcome the sole
criteria, which then leads to results. If they are able to resist external pressures to introduce other criteria that is, which sometimes they don't (i.e., they buy into shysters and hucksters.
It's seems there is a Pareto distribution here, and some people are
responsible for most of the transmission. It could just be that person being in a room with others, where someone else infected was just
working from home with a trip to the supermarket. It's not hard to
find yourself in close proximity momentarily. And some people are just not as disciplined about keeping distnace, washing, not touching their face, etc.
It's my God given right to protect myself from your diseased ugly
face.
Actually, it's not. It's your God given right to hide in your home if you choose and wear a mask if you choose. It's not your right to make the world change because you are miseducated.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 09-24-20 00:48, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
The trend I see is that people over-estimate the risk and over time,
the actual impact is less than what people think. Note, this is a
trend, not an absolute rule. I would expect there to be a heightened
I have seen it go both ways, where people either grossly underestimate
or overestimate the risk, and it takes time for everyone to get their
head around the facts.
sense of risk and danger, which means people look for, and notice the longer term effects. Note that the flu also can result in long term effects of 6 months of more, and for those with existing complications, can lead to further complications to be managed. This isn't to say COVID-19 isn't a problem, but the concerns are not as unique as people think. My point is really we accepted this in the past. We accepted
True, though the flu is at least a known quantity with some level of vaccination generally available, though certainly not 100% effective.
the flu, the deaths from it, the long term complications. These were
not justifications to clamp down on freedom, withhold basic civil liberties and ruin hundreds of thousands of people econimically and
cause long term financial, social and political damage. This is what
irks me, that we have accepted control at any price, without what I believe is solid reasoning.
I'm hopeful that we'll seen move into a sustainable steady state, where things are "mostly normal", but with some control measures, from encouraging better hygiene to enabling contract tracing, and better controls for sensitive places.
Any I haven't seen any reliable comparisons between the seasonal flu
(or even an outbreak like swine or avian flu) and COVID-19. I still
feel like I'm lacking data to really draw any conclusions, and as you point out below, it's hard to get facts, through the vested interests.
Again, I believe that extra controls are necessary, but the language,
the rhetoric, the reasoning is all off-kilter and often arbitrary, emotional and reactionary, and this won't yield good results. There
are so many vested interests pushing a particular view, its hard to
work out the truth.
Agree on the vested interests. If we are "at war" with this virus, the truth is certainly the first casualty, as usual. :)
Joe Rogan often makes the very good point that it is odd that this is lacking in official communication. We've heard endless details about
the hotel quarantine saga, but why isn't there as part of the education campaign, making people aware of how important their health and
nutrition is. Worse still, where excercise and outdoor activities
would HELP, we are locked in. I generally go for long walks late at
night which is when I have the time, and now I can't, and I've noticed
my health decline as a result. With young kids and a full time desk
job, that is really my only opportunity to fit a reasonable size one
in. So now the government is helping to DETERIORATE my wellbeing.
Now, that is a very good point, and I suspect you're not alone. I know others who have complained about losing some level of fitness. I've
been relatively lucky, having enough flexibility, though my strength probably hasn't increased as much as it would have in the gym, and
that's still not due to open until late November.
I can imagine how it works, as I deal with such beaurocracy all the
time. Let me guess, many high level, legalistic sounding policy
documents written by people justifying their position and little
practical guidance?
Yes, I suspect that's the case.
There are many people in the public sector (and even private sector
where it comes to regulatory/compliance roles), whose mode of operation
is more based on producing information which ticks expected checkboxes based on the judgement of others, than in producing a materially
positive result. That is to say, opinion and policy dictate results, rather than the actual material, objective outcomes.
Yes, I see this all too often as well, either a tick box exercise or as tokenism for some agenda. :/ And I agree with the next paragraph
(omitted for brevity) about all those extraneous bureaucratic and political pressures that are extraneous to the mission.
This is an advatage that private enterprise can have, in that the
people involved can make the direct, material outcome the sole
criteria, which then leads to results. If they are able to resist external pressures to introduce other criteria that is, which sometimes they don't (i.e., they buy into shysters and hucksters.
A lot of private companies do fall prey to the same pressures, but yes, those focused on the important goals can really achieve well here.
It's seems there is a Pareto distribution here, and some people are
I'm not familiar with that particular distribution.
responsible for most of the transmission. It could just be that person being in a room with others, where someone else infected was just
Yes, it seems some people are prone to spreading the virus much more
than others. I haven't seen any information that offers an explanation
as to why that is, whether it's something about the person themselves,
or whether it is a function of their particular movements, somewhere in between, or something else altogether.
working from home with a trip to the supermarket. It's not hard to
find yourself in close proximity momentarily. And some people are just not as disciplined about keeping distnace, washing, not touching their face, etc.
True. More variables, more study needed. :)
On 09-25-20 03:55, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
The Pareto distribution is a mathematical rule about distribution of
cause and effect, AKA the 80/20 rule, or that 80% of the effects come
from 20% of the causes. For example, most of the wealth is held by a
few, most of the birds you might see in an environment are the result
of a minority of the species that live there, most of the canopy in a rainforest is caused by a minority of the plants, etc etc. So
likewise, perhaps the large bulk if infections are caused by a few.
I probably blathered on too much about organisational problems, but
only because its a constant struggle in my personal life, and a direct negative impact. Also, I think this problem is far more serious than people realise. It can literally undo civilisations. Thats why I'm focused on these issues, because while COVID is an IMMEDIATE
existential threat, it's reveleaed to me gaping flaws in not only our systems, but in the way we THINK. In the not too distant future, we
will control the virus, but all the problems caused by our broken methodology will remain and fester, and we won't recover fully. The
next crisis that comes along, will screw us even more. Since September 11, 2001, each crisis has just made us weaker and weaker, and this will too. It also literally costs lives, but not being and immediate and obvious threat, its overlooked. There is no 'roaring 20's' after this.
gaping flaws in not only our systems, but in the way we THINK. In the not to distant future, we will control the virus, but all the problems caused by ou broken methodology will remain and fester, and we won't recover fully. The next crisis that comes along, will screw us even more. Since September 11,
2001, each crisis has just made us weaker and weaker, and this will too. It
also literally costs lives, but not being and immediate and obvious threat,
Re: Re: Masks made simplethreat,
By: Dennisk to Vk3jed on Fri Sep 25 2020 03:55 am
gaping flaws in not only our systems, but in the way we THINK. In the
not to distant future, we will control the virus, but all the problems
caused by ou broken methodology will remain and fester, and we won't
recover fully. The next crisis that comes along, will screw us even
more. Since September 11,
2001, each crisis has just made us weaker and weaker, and this will too. It
I disagree. We have become stronger and better equiped to keep threats out of our country.
also literally costs lives, but not being and immediate and obvious
COVID-19 should be a wake up call for people to realize the possibilities of germ warfare. From what I can tell it has not. So we are destined to kill each other because there are too many ignorant and stupid people in our world.
our world.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 09-25-20 03:55, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
The Pareto distribution is a mathematical rule about distribution of
cause and effect, AKA the 80/20 rule, or that 80% of the effects come
from 20% of the causes. For example, most of the wealth is held by a
few, most of the birds you might see in an environment are the result
of a minority of the species that live there, most of the canopy in a rainforest is caused by a minority of the plants, etc etc. So
likewise, perhaps the large bulk if infections are caused by a few.
Thanks. Everything I've seen points to this being very relevant to
what's going on with COVID-19 transmission.
I probably blathered on too much about organisational problems, but
only because its a constant struggle in my personal life, and a direct negative impact. Also, I think this problem is far more serious than people realise. It can literally undo civilisations. Thats why I'm focused on these issues, because while COVID is an IMMEDIATE
existential threat, it's reveleaed to me gaping flaws in not only our systems, but in the way we THINK. In the not too distant future, we
will control the virus, but all the problems caused by our broken methodology will remain and fester, and we won't recover fully. The
next crisis that comes along, will screw us even more. Since September 11, 2001, each crisis has just made us weaker and weaker, and this will too. It also literally costs lives, but not being and immediate and obvious threat, its overlooked. There is no 'roaring 20's' after this.
Well, on the organisational issues, I agree. My perspective is
probably a bit different to most. Firstly, it's not based upon an occupational perspective, but more decades of observations, which my
brain automatically turns into patterns and trends, and I see the same things over and over again, especially in government, and to a lesser extent, big business.
We certaingly need more diverse influences in our thinking styles, as a society, so we can have a better chance of avoiding the same traps over and over again. Also, the same human issues crop up time and time
again - greed, status and social standing, insecurities, etc.
HusTler wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to Vk3jed on Fri Sep 25 2020 03:55 am
gaping flaws in not only our systems, but in the way we THINK. In the not to distant future, we will control the virus, but all the problems caused by ou broken methodology will remain and fester, and we won't recover fully. The next crisis that comes along, will screw us even more. Since September 11,
2001, each crisis has just made us weaker and weaker, and this will too. It
I disagree. We have become stronger and better equiped to keep threats
out of our country.
also literally costs lives, but not being and immediate and obvious threat,
COVID-19 should be a wake up call for people to realize the
possibilities of germ warfare. From what I can tell it has not. So we
are destined to kill each other because there are too many ignorant and stupid people in our world.
On 09-26-20 08:18, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
A lot of these flaws are inherit in us, but we can use reason and
logic. This is increasingly being short ciruited, as we seem to want
to more and more move towards conslusions that we feel are right, than
are logically correct.
COVID-19 should be a wake up call for people to realize the
possibilities of germ warfare. From what I can tell it has not. So we
are destined to kill each other because there are too many ignorant and stupid people in our world.
our world.
i still dont think we can handle shit like this. the swine flu spread like wildfire and so does everything else. aids even spread to the same areas.
I think if there was more unity we could. But right now there's way too much discord.
COVID-19 should be a wake up call for people to realize the
possibilities of germ warfare. From what I can tell it has not. So we
are destined to kill each other because there are too many ignorant and
stupid people in our world.
It's very hard to contain the germs, they will come back to bite you. For me, I think its revealed how difficult actual germ warfare would be. On the other hand, sometimes I think that maybe it was allowed to spread to undermine us.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 09-26-20 08:18, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
A lot of these flaws are inherit in us, but we can use reason and
logic. This is increasingly being short ciruited, as we seem to want
to more and more move towards conslusions that we feel are right, than
are logically correct.
Yes, history keeps repeating itself. We _can_ use logic and reason in theory, but in practice, it rarely seems to work that way. Even NASA screws this one up (Apollo 1, Apollo 13, Challenger, Columbia...).
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to HusTler on Sat Sep 26 2020 09:43 am
COVID-19 should be a wake up call for people to realize the
possibilities of germ warfare. From what I can tell it has not. So we
are destined to kill each other because there are too many ignorant and
stupid people in our world.
It's very hard to contain the germs, they will come back to bite you. For me, I think its revealed how difficult actual germ warfare would be. On the other hand, sometimes I think that maybe it was allowed to spread to undermine us.
why do you think it's difficult? covid spread fast and so did the swine flu. ---
If you were to release a virus as an act of war, it would be hard for it not to also affect your population. You would have to transfer it OS, release it there, but then it would spread around the world, affecting many other neutral countries.
On 09-13-20 18:50, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I wouldn't use those examples. Some of these are lapses in working processes, errors. I'm referring to things such as political movements which base their validity on how their ideas sound, rather than say,
the end result of their application.
Fair enough. Political ideas do seem to go through trends, attract ma following then prove to be not what they were cracked up to be. Recently, there has been a lot of populism around the world, which seems to be a particularly short sighted set of ideas.
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to MRO on Sun Sep 13 2020 07:45 pm
If you were to release a virus as an act of war, it would be hard for it not to also affect your population. You would have to transfer it OS, release it there, but then it would spread around the world, affecting many other neutral countries.
if the virus only affected certain types of people, or if there
would be an antibody that could be administered to people and make them immune, that would be something they could work with. ---
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 09-13-20 18:50, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I wouldn't use those examples. Some of these are lapses in working processes, errors. I'm referring to things such as political movements which base their validity on how their ideas sound, rather than say,
the end result of their application.
Fair enough. Political ideas do seem to go through trends, attract ma following then prove to be not what they were cracked up to be.
Recently, there has been a lot of populism around the world, which
seems to be a particularly short sighted set of ideas.
As for the lapses in working processes, many of those "lapses" turned
out to be due to human factors like managerial or external pressures,
that exacerbated the technical issues or even prevented them from being resolved. :/
On 09-27-20 15:17, Arelor wrote to Vk3jed <=-
The masses are dumb so the products that sell well are the populist messages. "We will take Jack's money because he has too much and give
it to you!" is a popular one which will get you votes.
On 09-27-20 22:15, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
That's true, there were organisational issues which led to it. What concerns me more is the growing idea that knowledge and reason itself
is not important. Where identity seems to qualify someone more. I've noted this occuring more and more, where the person hired to perform a task is hired simply because of what they are, and that those doing the hiring think this attribute is actually more important than other,
well, important attributes. Would you want to fly in a plane where the engineers were selected on criteria which prioritised how cheerful they were? Because you could very well be doing so in the very near future.
A lot of these flaws are inherit in us, but we can use reason and
Yes, history keeps repeating itself. We _can_ use logic and reason in theory, but in practice, it rarely seems to work that way. Even NASA screws this one up (Apollo 1, Apollo 13, Challenger, Columbia...).
I wouldn't use those examples. Some of these are lapses in working processes, errors. I'm referring to things such as political movements
which base their validity on how their ideas sound, rather than say, the
end result of their application.
Political movements are based on what people want. Their validity has nothing to do with the movement. The people believe they are right want something from their government. eg Black Lives Matter.
People want lots of things, but you need to know how to create the condition which make it possible. Just saying you want it, or demanding it, is not enough, and often counter productive. History is full of example of people w pushed for "peace" and "mercy" and "Brotherhood" creating tyrannies because their methodology was all wrong. That is happening again today.
HusTler wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Masks made simple
By: Dennisk to HusTler on Tue Sep 29 2020 01:21 am
Political movements are based on what people want. Their validity has nothing to do with the movement. The people believe they are right want something from their government. eg Black Lives Matter.
People want lots of things, but you need to know how to create the condition which make it possible. Just saying you want it, or demanding it, is not enough, and often counter productive. History is full of example of people w pushed for "peace" and "mercy" and "Brotherhood" creating tyrannies because their methodology was all wrong. That is happening again today.
I'm not sure I'm following you. People ARE getting what they want.
The defunding of police is happening all over the country. Their
methology was to threaten lives and burn down buildings. Don't get me wrong. This is going to come back to them (BLM) in a harsh way. In my
view there's no validity that taking money away from cops is going to solve a thing. Let's see what the future brings.
| Sysop: | Gate Keeper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Shelby, NC |
| Users: | 719 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 103:16:52 |
| Calls: | 9,250 |
| Calls today: | 29 |
| Files: | 5,288 |
| D/L today: |
11 files (6,702K bytes) |
| Messages: | 466,561 |