Saturday, March 2, 2024

Biden's spokesperson: "Nothing we can do." Grow up





This is silly claim by KJP.







This is a dumb claim



I used gas stoves for years. I've got a carbon monoxide detector, and it didn't go off because of toxic fumes. It may well produce soot, as is claimed, but an auto MUST produce far more. This is absurd.

The Biden Administration wants to force everybody into the silly green schemes. Just say no to the loony left.











When convenience stopped being convenient



This is a personal rant of sorts. Convenience is what being online is about, I would think. If you have to go through a lot of inconvenience in order to keep using it, then what's the advantage?

So is the case today. In order to make changes in accounts, you have to jump through so many hoops that it becomes a real pain in the neck ( or even lower). I've spent the better part of this morning dealing with this issue, not to mention, it is costing me money as well as time.

As of this writing, the issues are continuing, and may be piling up. It has occurred to me that the Big Tech creations are becoming what monopolies become. They know you have no other place to go, so they take advantage. In a free market, that would mean a market opportunity. But do we have a free market anymore?

In some areas, it would appear to be not so.

Anyway, it is all connected with my recent move. I was told that it will take upwards of 3 weeks to process an address change. Plus all the websites need to be updated, yada, yada, yada. No wonder I don't like moving. I didn't even like it when I was younger and more spry. I really hate it now.

So the convenience angle isn't always convenient.

To handle something that you used to handle may mean driving into town. What if you are out in the country like me? Then you may be SOL. Or out a lot of time and gas. All of that on a small budget. What a pain in the neck. Reminds me of C3PO and another character on the 60's TV show "Lost in Space"--- I quote: "oh, the pain."







Friday, March 1, 2024

Is this true, or is it fake?



One might conclude from this that there's a neo-isolationist component to MAGA. Is that a fair interpretation, or is it a highly charged political information attack?

There's a problem here, but proper identification of what it is, is needed.







Credit binge is not evidence of prosperity, but the reverse









As Ronald Reagan once said: "The government is not the solution. Government is the problem."









Thursday, February 29, 2024

What was that about saving "our democracy"?



China is an authoritarian government now, or is it not? Even totalitarian governments hold elections. The question is whether or not they are free and fair elections. There's a question about that here. I suppose China holds free and fair elections, right? /sarc Schumer is shown waving the Chinese flag. Would he be waving the Russian Federation flag?

The Chinese have their admirers in the halls of government these days. We have the best government that the world can buy, or so it seems.







Gary Sinise's son dies of a chordoma

This isn't exactly new news. What I've read says it was back in early January that Gary Sinise's son died of a rare bone cancer ( that I was diagonosed with in 2017.) How did I miss this one? I guess it is easy when you are busy. Obviously, I'm not dead. At least not yet. That may be bad news for somebody. But if I die soon from this, I'll be sure to haunt you guys. Bwah, hah, hah!

I know that is in poor taste, but what can I say? I like Grand Funk Railroad, so what do you expect???











"Don't worry about no time, we can always jump back to right now"



You can't sue? Says who?







Caveat emptor sucka.

No time to watch the entire video. Got stuff to do.

I bot a fridge on my recent move. It wasn't this brand, but I wonder if they pulled the same stunt as this manufacturer did. It's screw you time for some these high rollers. For them, it's always how you can screw that other guy. As the Godfather said, "it's not poysonal, it's business."











Is this woman crazy?



Why is she still running? There are only a few ways she wins: 1) is with Democrat votes that won't be there in November, or 2) if Donald Trump gets booted off the ballot somehow, and she is the only alternative left. Either way, she loses. Even is she wins, there's nothing for the base GOP voter to look forward from her if she is ever in the White House. Odds are, she'll never get that far.

It's almost masochistic to keep running because her situation is hopeless. Nobody wants her, not even many of those who are voting for her now. The expectation must be that she and her supporters expect the GOP faithful to fall in line and vote for her if she gets the nomination. Or she is running to deliberately damage Donald Trump's chances. The latter is the only way she could be making a rational choice, in my opinion. I don't think that I'd vote for her in any case.







War Stories



Update to Sept 22, 2012 post:

This is interesting in light of what I wrote yesterday about the random walk theory. I'm sure that I had heard about the random walk theory back then, but did not read up on it. I dived into the markets with the idea to beat the markets because I thought I could. My methods didn't work out, but it seemed like I came close. You can only beat the markets if you find an inefficiency in it.  I was using a home grown software package that I also intended to market if it ever worked.   Of course, it didn't.

But what if the markets are rigged? You can get that impression. Indeed, there is crooked shit in the markets, and you can definitely get burned. I know that from first hand experience. Never did a comprehensive tally of my winnings and losses in the markets, but I'd say I lost more money that I gained.

What about the markets today? I am still of the opinion I had when I tried going short in 2009. The markets are bound to crash at some point, but as with all things, it is very, very hard to judge the timing of it.

end update, the original post from 2012 follows directly below:

The stock market is a bit nuts right now, so I'm not in it.  But it may be useful to go back and tell a few of my investments and why some worked and others didn't.  Or, to put it more accurately, why I think it happened the way it did.

I thought about getting into the markets back in 1987.  I talked to a guy about a stock broker job and it seemed like he wanted to hire me, but I got wet feet.  Not too long afterward, the market crashed.  It seemed like a good decision.

By 1998 though, I decided to get in.  Online trading made it easy for anyone and the market was going gangbusters, so I was in.  But I got creamed.  One of the first stocks I tried was Computer Horizons.  This was a Y2K stock, and by 1998, it had seen its better days.  But this was not obvious, at least to me at the time.  But there was a pretty strong hint.  It is called a head and shoulders type chart.  By the time I started trading, I knew what a head and shoulders chart was, and I saw it for Computer Horizons.  The trouble is that I didn't believe it.  So, I invested anyway and got my head handed to me.

To make matters worse, I did what you shouldn't do.  I averaged down.  I knew this was against good practice, but I did it anyway.  It only added to my losses.  Being stubborn when you are wrong only makes matters worse, you know.  You have to be able to admit to yourself when you are wrong.  Did I learn this lesson?  No, because a couple years later, I did it again.

By 2001, the bull market was over and I decided to stay bullish.  Big mistake.  I bought a stock called JDS Uniphase.  As with Computer Horizons, it became obvious that was a loser, but I didn't want to believe it.  So, I averaged down and only added to my losses.  The fate of that stock is hardly any better than Computer Horizons.  While Computer Horizons has gone out of business, the last time I checked, JDS is still kicking.  But that investment would never have paid off.  There are times when I look back and think that it might have if I waited a little longer, but time muddies the waters a bit.  Closer examination showed that it was a loser and the loss could never be regained.

In both of these cases, I really didn't know what I was doing.  That's why I lost so badly.  So, I stopped speculating in stocks and tried some other stuff.  Stock picking ain't my game.  But what game could I play and win?  I tried currency trading and precious metals.  Currency trading didn't work.  There was a reason why it didn't work.  Currency trading is highly leveraged.  If you time it wrong, you can be wiped out and wiped out fast.  It was too hard.  Precious metals did work.  I think it worked because the risk was limited.  Your investment can never be completely wiped out.  It will always retain some value, so if your timing is right, you can make money.  If your timing is wrong, you can get back most of your money.  Yes, and this did work for me.  I regained most of my losses from before, plus a small profit.

Despite all the failures, I wouldn't condemn trading.  There were plenty of opportunities to make a killing, but it didn't happen.  I just ran out of time.

For instance, just before the market started on its last upward blowoff top in 2000, I put in an order for Broadvision.  The order nearly completed when the rally began.  That meant I missed the boat by 3/8, which is about 38 cents per share.  If that order filled, the potential would have been a 20 to 1 return on my investment.  Of course, I would have had to had played it right to get that, but the opportunity was there.  There are many stories like this that I could tell.  But it never did happen.  I had to understand what a blowoff top is and why it was a blowoff top.  I had to understand how doggone hard it is to judge a bottom perfectly and buy at the bottom.   It is also doggone hard to judge a top too.  But this is possible, just not possible to do with great precision.

By 2006, I still wanted to trade stocks so I bought a stock called Altair Nano.  They made batteries intended for automobiles.  But in 2007, things started going south for the economy.  Fortunately, I saw and remembered that you don't want to be long in the markets when the economy tanked.  I sold and went short the entire market.  That play worked like gangbusters.

Going short is high risk though.  It worked for me because I was right.  But if you're wrong, your losses can be unlimited.

By 2009, I was absolutely convinced that current economic policy was nuts.  I tried going short, but I got my butt kicked.  I've been out ever since.  Sure, I could have gone long and made big bucks, but I have no confidence in the markets.  For I've learned that when the market turns against you, losses can mount very fast.  I wouldn't touch these markets with a ten foot pole.

That's a short history of my doings in the market.  Basically, it all boils down to learning from the school of hard knocks.  You learn what works and what doesn't.  Besides that, you learn about yourself.  For example, some people can tolerate risk better.  I'm not one of those people.  A high risk play is probably not for me.  You have to know these things if you want to have any hope of success.  Another thing is that you can make plenty of money if you are right.  Likewise you can lose your butt if you are wrong.  So you better be right.  The opportunities are there as long as the market is sane and working properly.  I don't think it is right now.


Wednesday, February 28, 2024

Krugman scopes out "rural rage"



2/28/24, 12:45 pm

A couple thoughts further on this: 1) Compared to the left, the Loyal Opposition is rather placid and mild. They even clean up their own messes when they DO demonstrate. Consequently, the riot on J6th is suspicious in its own right. The lefties like Krugman are all too often looking for hobgoblins in the the Loyal Opposition, but they should actually look into the mirror. What rage, then?, and

2) Is this an example of projection?

It's pretty hard for me to see how a few country folk can be a threat to the popular culture and government. Those two institutions have a powerful sway over the course of events. It's like a elephant being scared silly over a mouse.

end update, the original post is directly below:

Like Mighty Casey, he has struck out.

Or was that George Will?









Random walk can teach you plenty

Veritasium channel

Of particular interest is just before the 11 minute mark. The random motion of molecules describes the temperature of molecules. The temperature is the random motion of molecules, which averages out to what we call temperature. The motion is KINETIC in nature. That means it moves. But it wasn't about physics. It was about making money.

And I thought I could predict the prices of stocks. The random walk theory says how wrong I was. Or was I? I lost plenty of money on such a silly thought. Or was it silly, according to this video? Mind bending, but if I had solved it, maybe I would be rich right now.







Rule of law returns? Maybe.



Those who preach "rule of law" have been shown to be in violation of the Constitution. Imagine that. /sarc







Way to go, Little Jebbie! Jeb Bush finds his voice. Imagine that. /sarc

Better late than never. Maybe this is good news. Sanity could return?





Tuesday, February 27, 2024

FAA finishes mishap investigation for Starship IFT2









What's the difference between conspiracy and truth?



About six months, it says.

We need to speed that up. Six months is too long to wait for the truth, and it is too much time for more mischief.











The silly season is upon us



Each election cycle seems to get crazier than the last. It is evidence of something, and it may not be good. There is already some troubling rumblings out there. If true, this may be the last election held in this country as we know have known it.

It has been called the silly season in past cycles, because it seemed rather harmless. However, these latest developments are like what Thomas Jefferson described as a "firebell in the night". Jefferson was referring to the sectional controversy that existed prior to the Civil War. This situation isn't exactly like that one, but the differences are stark, and the stakes are high.

A presidential election preceded the last Civil War. This Civil War, if it comes, may well come down to the results of a presidential election. If so, who will be most responsible for the breakup of the Union? What will be the issues that are being fought over?

Some might say personalities. But it isn't about Trump's personality at all. The personality aspect is part of the rampant dishonesty that is part of the silly season. It isn't about Biden's mental faculties either, despite the fact that he really has some issues there. So what is the real issue here?

We'll be lucky if that question gets asked. The silly season is rampant with phony issues. It's like what the late Herb Cohen once said: "Once you get past the phony tinsel, you get to the real tinsel." We'll have trouble getting past the phony tinsel part the way we're going. More Russian collusion. Please spare me the nonsense.

There is no honesty and integrity out there. On that count, I'd say Trump has it all over Biden. The Democrats are hell bent on gaining and keeping power. There is no such thing as a loyal opposition for these people. If there was respect for a loyal opposition, would the Democrats be trying to destroy Trump? None of their accusations are made in good faith based upon something real. The Democrats are conjuring up a monster, while ignoring their own monstrous behavior. The persecution of this man is unreal. All he did was to beat them at an election. For this, he has committed the greatest "crime" ever committed. What kind of mentality could think that way? Not one that has been the long time tradition of this country, which included the freedom to disagree.

But if they really respected the institutions, such as the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, would they treat the opposition so shabbily? The founding documents allow for a loyal opposition. There's something terribly wrong when it becomes a crime to disagree with the powers-that-be. It is downright un-American. That is, it would have been said to be so at one time in the past, but not so much now. The country has lost its sense of self.

Make America great again? I'd settle for making America its true self again. The greatness came from that. The spirit that made this country great is on trial now. The outcome of that trial is in doubt. There's nothing silly about that one. If you are inclined to pray, then this country needs one right now. Perhaps it is too late for that. Better to do it anyway with all the humility and sincerity that you can muster. That is, if you care enough to be concerned about it.





Monday, February 26, 2024

Gemini AI

Artificial intelligence in the news

This seems to be getting a lot of mention. Actually, I don't see the point of it. Artificial intelligence isn't intelligence. People may be making the mistake of thinking that computers can actually think. But what can computers really do? In short, what does the computer bring to the game, and how does that stack up with natural intelligence?

What actually defines intelligence? There is a test called the Turing Test, which claims to determine if a machine can "think". The wikipedia linked above didn't interest me much beyond the first few paragraphs. Perhaps I shouldn't have linked it. But it will give something of a rundown of what the Turing test is. An FYI of sorts. I prefer to know what I'm talking about even when I don't.

Perhaps you can give humans a Turing Test. Maybe the humans really aren't human. ha ha

Seriously, computers can only do what's put into them. A bunch of chess masters can program a computer that can beat the finest chess grandmasters. But does that mean that the machine can think? Here's something to consider. What about novel situations? What would a computer do in a novel situation if its programming wasn't designed to handle a certain kind of input?

If a computer could devise a way to handle novel situations, and do it as well as a person could, I think I would be impressed. But not yet.

In the Terminator movies that made the Governator a blockbuster actor, the computers were said to have gotten "smart". Yet, in a class I took towards the end of my college days, an instructor opined that a computer cannot become self-aware. If a computer cannot become self-aware, then how can it become truly intelligent? The thought seems to have crossed the minds of certain film-makers. At the moment, I tend to agree with the intructor.

To explain a little further, a self-awareness means that the computer knows it's "alive". An insect knows that much. Can any computer even match insect levels of intelligence? In the movie, the computer became self-aware, and then sought to fight back any attempts to shut it down. That could be a sign of self-awareness if a computer recognized a novel situation such as that, and conjured up a plan to respond to it. It would entail some emotion in order to have motives. For example, If you try to pull the plug on it, it will perceive its existence as being threatened, and it may well retaliate. In the movie, the computers launched a nuclear attack that brought about "Judgment Day". Such a move could very well be considered "intelligent". Would a human do that? Maybe. A couple nukes got dropped on Japan.

Should we all be concerned about that?

I'd be more than a bit concerned about an over-reliance upon computers to do your thinking for you. After all, a computer does not think. Not yet, that is.

There is another possibility. Cybernetic activities could be initiated. A cybernetic organism combines human qualities with a machine qualities. The advantage of machines is its computational speed. Attach that to humans, and you may have enhanced human existence. The best of both worlds, so to speak. Or the worst. Name your poison.

Such could be happening now. Seems that I've read about enhanced human existence via machines.

As for Gemini news, I tend to discount that. More than likely, the artificial intelligence features now in existence may well be used to control human populations. The motives for that are in the political sphere. But in order to avoid accountability, the politicans as string-pullers and the controllers will blame the computers. However, computers are not that smart, nor are they likely to ever be. There's somebody pulling the strings behind the curtain. But are people smart enough to perceive that they are being taken for a ride?

Humans don't have Turing tests, but there are other tests. Those tests do not have to be formal. The real test is when or if the Skynet scenario plays out. Then we get to see if the computers win, or we do.

Sunday, February 25, 2024

What is it with these people



2/25/24: Update to 10/22 post:

In order to show that the left is ideologically Marxist, take a note from history ( if it is still taught ), and see the parallels. The left-center-right paradigm is from Marxist theory. Read up on it, and be informed. I did.

Krugman wants to compare the opposition to fascists. Fascists are Nazis, and so are the Republicans! So, what's the latest thing going around? Christian Nationalists, that's what. Let's take that one apart, and see what's under the hood.

Adolf Hitler was born a Catholic. Consequently, any Catholic has to be a Nazi, right? However, if Hitler was anything in terms of religion, he was pagan. The Nazis subscribed to the philosophy of Nietsche, who thought of Christianity as a sort of slave mentality. There is nothing in Hitler's philosophy that was Christian. So, this pagan sets up the Nazi party in Germany, starts a world war, and tries to wipe out the Jews. such a person is EEEEEVIL, right? Of course he is. But some of the thinking that was behind Nazism is right there inside the Marxist paradigm. Read up on it and find out. Listen to progaganda, on the other hand, and allow yourselves to be deceived.

Hitler is as far away as one can get from communism, right? After all, they are polar opposites. That is, if you believe that ideology. But Hitler described the Nazi Party as Socialist. That's what Nazi means, after all. It means, "National Socialism". If Hitler, being born a Catholic, can think up Nazism, then all rightists must be Nazis, right? And all Christians that are nationalist must also be like Hitler, and are fundamentally dangerous. Ooo! Such nasty people!

If you cannot see through the fallacies and the irrationality of their arguments, then you will be deceived by them. One is tempted to condemn Krugman and his leftist friends as liars, but some of these people really believe that stuff. If you believe it, then you aren't a liar. But you may be crazier than a bed bug.

One doesn't get to totalitarian governments via free speech. One gets there through incessant propaganda. When it comes to totalitarianism, the Democrats have got a lock on that one, because of their fondness for censorship. If they are so afraid of dissident ideas, then it must challenge what their most closely held beliefs. But beliefs can be challenged and upheld as true. Or they can be challenged and found wanting. What are the Democrats so afraid of?

end update, the original post from 10/1/22 is directly below:



It has been mentioned here that Democrats really don't want an opposition, and the proof is in reading Krugman's book--"The Conscience of a Liberal".

This needs to be discussed further, as some folks may not believe it. Or they'll deny it. But it is there, perhaps not stated directly, but it can be deduced easily from what he writes. It is in his major thesis, so it can hardly be missed. To put it succinctly as possible, Krugman blames the "polarization" on effective political opposition of "movement conservativism". Conservatism is naughty, basically.

He claims that "movement conservatism" is fascist. Again, not in so many words, but it can be deduced. Hence, it is a rather naughty thing to have any dissent. What is "polarization" if it is not dissent?

Krugman says that there was the "good old days" when Eisenhower Republicans stopped opposing Democrats. Everybody got along splendidly and the country prospered. True enough, the "good old days" really were better than now, but is dissent the cause of our troubles? He compares the eighties to the so-called Gilded Age. Krugman concedes that there was rapid progress during what he disparaging calls the Gilded Age. It should also be remembered that the progress in the Reagan years happened for a reason, as the prosperity that ended in the sixties and early seventies led to the one-term presidency of Jimmy Carter. Carter is remembered for the stagflation, a phony energy crisis, and weak foreign policy. Reagan turned that around and won 49 states in 1984.

Krugman would have everyone believe that Cold War would have been won anyway without Reagan. Prosperity would have returned without Reaganomics. But would it have? It didn't seem that way at the time. If it was Krugman wanted, and Reagan was suppressed, everyone would be more equal, and there would have been a utopia. There may well have been more equality, but it would have been the kind that the Soviets enforced. Everything that went with communism would have been the condition here. We've seen empty store shelves, long gasoline lines, poor quality of consumer goods, and what have you. Those were the usual thngs in the former Soviet Union. Reagan exposed these weaknesses and the Soviet Union collapsed. It was no accident. Reagan declared he would put the Soviet Union on the ash heap of history, and he did it. It would seem that Krugman is calling the seventies and asking for his old Soviet Union back.

It is well known that communism does not brook any dissent. There are no civil liberties. There is no economic freedom. It would seem that "polarization" is not necessarily such a bad thing. If everything was perfect, there would be no need for a change. But what if there were no opportunities for improving things? Then you get the stultifying society that the Soviet Union was, and what the USA is becoming more and more like--ala Krugman and his ilk.

In the Communist Manifesto, it was acknowledged that people would not accept communism freely. Therefore, there had to be a dictatorship. Also, communists believed that it had to be world-wide to succeed. Hence the constant agitation for overthowing the old order. If the communists did succeed, and it became world-wide, then how would there ever be any way to improve conditions? If all dissent is bad, then how can problems ever be identified and corrected? They could not, and that is why conditions in communist held regions are so poor. But if everybody was miserable, maybe they wouldn't feel it as much. Everybody would be equally miserable. Is that what the left wants?

Communism offers no incentives. Even the Russians said the same after the Soviet Union ended. The mania for equality cannot coexist with advancement of civilization. Some "polarization" is necessary because perfect agreement is not possible except in a dicatorship, and not even there. It can only be suppressed, and everyone pretends that things are fine, even if they are not. It's why Communists need dictatorships. The communists believe that they could create a new man, who would no longer respond to incentives. They tried it and it failed. Even if it succeeded, such a "new man" could not be expected to understand the minds of others if they are not allowed to speak freely.

At the heart of it all is that leftists believe that dissent is bad. Experience has shown otherwise. The communists believe that you can create a society of angels, but such is impossible. Dissent is necessary, regardless of whether or not you think it is good or bad.