THE Humanity! Beer Prices Going UP

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:01:52 -0500, in the land of
alt.hackers.malicious, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> got double
secret probation for writing:

>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:16:24 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>
>> mimus wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:05:00 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>
>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:02:08 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:15:37 -0600, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:04:48 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:54:59 -0600, TheBookman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:07:23 -0500, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:15:36 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:09:26 +0000, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:24:05 -0500, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bloviated:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:22:01 GMT, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.mercurynews.com/foodheadlines/ci_8311983
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hop and Barley prices have increased dramatically, price for *good*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>beer is going up. Bud-water and Curs unaffected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>good thing i brew my own fermented beverages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the cost is going up, IF you can get the good hops anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can substitute several things for hops with good results, including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>catnip and pot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not to mention all the horrible other things you can wrestle into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>boil-bags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>indeed. hops were not used in beer until rather recently, i believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>between 700 AD and 1,000 AD. before that, they used all kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>stuff, including hot red pepper.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Unless you're referring to red peppecorns (unlikely or at least very
>>>>>>>>>>>uncommon, IMO, given the expense), red (chile) peppers cannot have been
>>>>>>>>>>>used to flavor beer before 1492CE, since they originated from the "New
>>>>>>>>>>>World", along with potatoes and tomatoes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>HTH.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Didn't, like, the Toltecs or Olmecs or anyone brew beer?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>sure they did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>everyone brewed beer of some sort.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>although its still somewhat up in the air about whether beer, wine, or
>>>>>>>>>mead were first on the human fermentables calendar. the probability
>>>>>>>>>is beer or mead, which ferment far faster than wine, but who knows?
>>>>>>>>>were talking like 8000 BC or more back in history.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Right, and cereal grains date back only to 5000 BCE and the founding
>>>>>>>>of Jericho around the discovery of Emmer wheat, or 3000> BCE and rice
>>>>>>>>in the Orient.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Honey is relatively rare (until commercial hay-fields) and incurs
>>>>>>>>some difficulty in the harvest, particulary for a people without
>>>>>>>>ready (made from scratch) fire. Honey is also self-preserving, and
>>>>>>>>will not ferment unless diluted and forced.
>>>>>>>>Berries are likely first of that group, are more common than
>>>>>>>>fruits, esp. the modern, large-pulp varieties, and several will
>>>>>>>>produce all season.
>>>>>>>>However one wonders if Adam actually ate apple or got plonked on
>>>>>>>>natural cider (cf. Frost's "The Cow in Apple-Time"), hence the
>>>>>>>>Injunction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>However, the most-likely "first" is one of the known root-starches.
>>>>>>>>The earliest under cultivation were various water-lilies (lotus,
>>>>>>>>e.g.) in the Tigris, Nile, Indus, etc.
>>>>>>>>What makes it difficult is that written records postdate Jericho,
>>>>>>>>and that the materials of undistilled booze are ephemeral and the
>>>>>>>>tools common pots, obviating archeological evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>making it even harder, one theory has that people travelling around
>>>>>>>even pre civilization would make containers out of skins for water.
>>>>>>>the theory says that they might even put in fruits or honey for taste,
>>>>>>>which of course would have wild yeast on it, and so by seeming magic,
>>>>>>>a skin here or there would produce an alcoholic elixer. and of course
>>>>>>>that skin would become imbued with yeast such that pretty much any
>>>>>>>water/sugar addition would do the trick! and yer just not gonna find
>>>>>>>a skin like this in the archeological record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Perzakly.
>>>>>> But the funny thing about statistics is this, that if a thing has
>>>>>>only a chance in a billion of happening, it's fuken well gonna happen.
>>>>>
>>>>>No no no, that's only if it's
>>>
>>> exactly
>>>
>>>>>a million to one against.
>>>>>
>>>>>(The Adams-Pratchett Axiom of Improbability.)
>>>>
>>>>Douglas Adams?
>>>> (It's a real axiom, and a lot older than he.)
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," "The
>> Restaurant at the Edge of the Universe," etc., which makes extreme
>> use of various improbabilities and pseudoparadoxes in theoretical
>> "physics," incl. "The Improbability Drive."
>> All(?) such "theories" exist only in isolation; Adams simply plugs
>> them back into mainstream reality and cackles at the "results."
>
>Yes, yes?
>
>>> Are you speaking simply of the truism that anything not impossible can
>>> happen, no matter how unlikely, or something even grottier?
>>
>> Approximately; it's merely an "opening lesson" in almost any
>> statistics course/book, i.e., that anything that has even a
>> vanishingly small probability of happening damwell /will/ eventually
>> happen, i.e., that it's inevitable.
>> It's a crucial point of subatomic physics, planetology, and
>> cosmology often forgotten by the careless and never learned by those
>> who would rather be Faithful.
>
>"Crucial"? I'd go with the more likely stuff, meself, like what happens to
>a free neutron after about fifteen minutes or at most within an hour or
>two (OK, some may never blow).
>
>It's enough to make your hair stand on end.
>
>Not least in its many (and mostly unregarded) implications.
>
>>> I fixed the API Axiom above. Sorry.
>>
>> The actual principle has no specific coefficient, and I've never
>> heard (to remember it) that it had an attribution name.
>
>That's Pratchett's emendation of the Adamsian theory of the greater the
>improbability the greater the probability.
>
>> One feels that Zeno would have propounded it, but then he missed
>> so damned much that was right next to what he knew that it makes one
>> leery of using "any," "all," or "none" in any context outside the
>> strictly logical.
>
>Considering that the propositional logic was not separated out from set
>theory until George Boole's _An Investigation of the Laws of Thought_
>(1854), and the mathematics of form not separated out from propositional
>logic until George Spencer Brown's _Laws of Form_ (1964), I have a
>somewhat jaundiced view of earlier philosophy, not to mention the "Age of
>Reason".
>
>The Greeks in particular along with their many splendid achievements
>made many philosophical howlers as well, as could only be expected (I
>accept and sympathize with "first gropings" as a rational plea in
>mitigation of such things as the "spiritual hypothesis", although that
>plea withers with time), and moving on to more complex matters one can
>only hope that Plato's _Republic_ was a joke, a satire on Sparta and/or
>Utopia-building, although one fears not.
>
>> It's a big universe, and temporally infinite.
>
>Maybe we're just infinitesimal.

AHEM
What does that death threat have to do with the price of beer?

--

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

Aratzio - Usenet ruiner #2

 

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:09:38 -0800, Aratzio wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:01:52 -0500, in the land of
> alt.hackers.malicious, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> got double
> secret probation for writing:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:16:24 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>
>>> mimus wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:05:00 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:02:08 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:15:37 -0600, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:04:48 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:54:59 -0600, TheBookman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:07:23 -0500, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:15:36 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:09:26 +0000, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:24:05 -0500, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bloviated:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:22:01 GMT, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.mercurynews.com/foodheadlines/ci_8311983
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hop and Barley prices have increased dramatically, price for *good*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>beer is going up. Bud-water and Curs unaffected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>good thing i brew my own fermented beverages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the cost is going up, IF you can get the good hops anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can substitute several things for hops with good results, including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>catnip and pot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not to mention all the horrible other things you can wrestle into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>boil-bags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>indeed. hops were not used in beer until rather recently, i believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>between 700 AD and 1,000 AD. before that, they used all kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>stuff, including hot red pepper.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Unless you're referring to red peppecorns (unlikely or at least very
>>>>>>>>>>>>uncommon, IMO, given the expense), red (chile) peppers cannot have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>used to flavor beer before 1492CE, since they originated from the "New
>>>>>>>>>>>>World", along with potatoes and tomatoes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>HTH.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Didn't, like, the Toltecs or Olmecs or anyone brew beer?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>sure they did.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>everyone brewed beer of some sort.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>although its still somewhat up in the air about whether beer, wine, or
>>>>>>>>>>mead were first on the human fermentables calendar. the probability
>>>>>>>>>>is beer or mead, which ferment far faster than wine, but who knows?
>>>>>>>>>>were talking like 8000 BC or more back in history.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Right, and cereal grains date back only to 5000 BCE and the founding
>>>>>>>>>of Jericho around the discovery of Emmer wheat, or 3000> BCE and rice
>>>>>>>>>in the Orient.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Honey is relatively rare (until commercial hay-fields) and incurs
>>>>>>>>>some difficulty in the harvest, particulary for a people without
>>>>>>>>>ready (made from scratch) fire. Honey is also self-preserving, and
>>>>>>>>>will not ferment unless diluted and forced.
>>>>>>>>>Berries are likely first of that group, are more common than
>>>>>>>>>fruits, esp. the modern, large-pulp varieties, and several will
>>>>>>>>>produce all season.
>>>>>>>>>However one wonders if Adam actually ate apple or got plonked on
>>>>>>>>>natural cider (cf. Frost's "The Cow in Apple-Time"), hence the
>>>>>>>>>Injunction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>However, the most-likely "first" is one of the known root-starches.
>>>>>>>>>The earliest under cultivation were various water-lilies (lotus,
>>>>>>>>>e.g.) in the Tigris, Nile, Indus, etc.
>>>>>>>>>What makes it difficult is that written records postdate Jericho,
>>>>>>>>>and that the materials of undistilled booze are ephemeral and the
>>>>>>>>>tools common pots, obviating archeological evidence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>making it even harder, one theory has that people travelling around
>>>>>>>>even pre civilization would make containers out of skins for water.
>>>>>>>>the theory says that they might even put in fruits or honey for taste,
>>>>>>>>which of course would have wild yeast on it, and so by seeming magic,
>>>>>>>>a skin here or there would produce an alcoholic elixer. and of course
>>>>>>>>that skin would become imbued with yeast such that pretty much any
>>>>>>>>water/sugar addition would do the trick! and yer just not gonna find
>>>>>>>>a skin like this in the archeological record.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Perzakly.
>>>>>>> But the funny thing about statistics is this, that if a thing has
>>>>>>>only a chance in a billion of happening, it's fuken well gonna happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No no no, that's only if it's
>>>>
>>>> exactly
>>>>
>>>>>>a million to one against.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(The Adams-Pratchett Axiom of Improbability.)
>>>>>
>>>>>Douglas Adams?
>>>>> (It's a real axiom, and a lot older than he.)
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," "The
>>> Restaurant at the Edge of the Universe," etc., which makes extreme
>>> use of various improbabilities and pseudoparadoxes in theoretical
>>> "physics," incl. "The Improbability Drive."
>>> All(?) such "theories" exist only in isolation; Adams simply plugs
>>> them back into mainstream reality and cackles at the "results."
>>
>>Yes, yes?
>>
>>>> Are you speaking simply of the truism that anything not impossible can
>>>> happen, no matter how unlikely, or something even grottier?
>>>
>>> Approximately; it's merely an "opening lesson" in almost any
>>> statistics course/book, i.e., that anything that has even a
>>> vanishingly small probability of happening damwell /will/ eventually
>>> happen, i.e., that it's inevitable.
>>> It's a crucial point of subatomic physics, planetology, and
>>> cosmology often forgotten by the careless and never learned by those
>>> who would rather be Faithful.
>>
>>"Crucial"? I'd go with the more likely stuff, meself, like what happens to
>>a free neutron after about fifteen minutes or at most within an hour or
>>two (OK, some may never blow).
>>
>>It's enough to make your hair stand on end.
>>
>>Not least in its many (and mostly unregarded) implications.
>>
>>>> I fixed the API Axiom above. Sorry.
>>>
>>> The actual principle has no specific coefficient, and I've never
>>> heard (to remember it) that it had an attribution name.
>>
>>That's Pratchett's emendation of the Adamsian theory of the greater the
>>improbability the greater the probability.
>>
>>> One feels that Zeno would have propounded it, but then he missed
>>> so damned much that was right next to what he knew that it makes one
>>> leery of using "any," "all," or "none" in any context outside the
>>> strictly logical.
>>
>>Considering that the propositional logic was not separated out from set
>>theory until George Boole's _An Investigation of the Laws of Thought_
>>(1854), and the mathematics of form not separated out from propositional
>>logic until George Spencer Brown's _Laws of Form_ (1964), I have a
>>somewhat jaundiced view of earlier philosophy, not to mention the "Age of
>>Reason".
>>
>>The Greeks in particular along with their many splendid achievements
>>made many philosophical howlers as well, as could only be expected (I
>>accept and sympathize with "first gropings" as a rational plea in
>>mitigation of such things as the "spiritual hypothesis", although that
>>plea withers with time), and moving on to more complex matters one can
>>only hope that Plato's _Republic_ was a joke, a satire on Sparta and/or
>>Utopia-building, although one fears not.
>>
>>> It's a big universe, and temporally infinite.
>>
>>Maybe we're just infinitesimal.
>
> AHEM
> What does that death threat have to do with the price of beer?

Aren't they cutting our beer off, like they did America's soldiers' beer
in the Korean War, due to Christian women's groups objecting?

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

Thank you for your patience, all our customer
representatives are busy posting to usenet.
Please hang up and kill yourself.

< Blitz the Cat

 

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:35:01 -0500, in the land of rec.arts.poems,
mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
writing:

>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:09:38 -0800, Aratzio wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:01:52 -0500, in the land of
>> alt.hackers.malicious, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> got double
>> secret probation for writing:
>>
>>>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:16:24 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>
>>>> mimus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:05:00 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:02:08 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:15:37 -0600, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>>>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:04:48 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:54:59 -0600, TheBookman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:07:23 -0500, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:15:36 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:09:26 +0000, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:24:05 -0500, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bloviated:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:22:01 GMT, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.mercurynews.com/foodheadlines/ci_8311983
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hop and Barley prices have increased dramatically, price for *good*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>beer is going up. Bud-water and Curs unaffected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>good thing i brew my own fermented beverages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the cost is going up, IF you can get the good hops anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can substitute several things for hops with good results, including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>catnip and pot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not to mention all the horrible other things you can wrestle into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>boil-bags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>indeed. hops were not used in beer until rather recently, i believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>between 700 AD and 1,000 AD. before that, they used all kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>stuff, including hot red pepper.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Unless you're referring to red peppecorns (unlikely or at least very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>uncommon, IMO, given the expense), red (chile) peppers cannot have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>used to flavor beer before 1492CE, since they originated from the "New
>>>>>>>>>>>>>World", along with potatoes and tomatoes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>HTH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Didn't, like, the Toltecs or Olmecs or anyone brew beer?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>sure they did.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>everyone brewed beer of some sort.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>although its still somewhat up in the air about whether beer, wine, or
>>>>>>>>>>>mead were first on the human fermentables calendar. the probability
>>>>>>>>>>>is beer or mead, which ferment far faster than wine, but who knows?
>>>>>>>>>>>were talking like 8000 BC or more back in history.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Right, and cereal grains date back only to 5000 BCE and the founding
>>>>>>>>>>of Jericho around the discovery of Emmer wheat, or 3000> BCE and rice
>>>>>>>>>>in the Orient.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Honey is relatively rare (until commercial hay-fields) and incurs
>>>>>>>>>>some difficulty in the harvest, particulary for a people without
>>>>>>>>>>ready (made from scratch) fire. Honey is also self-preserving, and
>>>>>>>>>>will not ferment unless diluted and forced.
>>>>>>>>>>Berries are likely first of that group, are more common than
>>>>>>>>>>fruits, esp. the modern, large-pulp varieties, and several will
>>>>>>>>>>produce all season.
>>>>>>>>>>However one wonders if Adam actually ate apple or got plonked on
>>>>>>>>>>natural cider (cf. Frost's "The Cow in Apple-Time"), hence the
>>>>>>>>>>Injunction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>However, the most-likely "first" is one of the known root-starches.
>>>>>>>>>>The earliest under cultivation were various water-lilies (lotus,
>>>>>>>>>>e.g.) in the Tigris, Nile, Indus, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>What makes it difficult is that written records postdate Jericho,
>>>>>>>>>>and that the materials of undistilled booze are ephemeral and the
>>>>>>>>>>tools common pots, obviating archeological evidence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>making it even harder, one theory has that people travelling around
>>>>>>>>>even pre civilization would make containers out of skins for water.
>>>>>>>>>the theory says that they might even put in fruits or honey for taste,
>>>>>>>>>which of course would have wild yeast on it, and so by seeming magic,
>>>>>>>>>a skin here or there would produce an alcoholic elixer. and of course
>>>>>>>>>that skin would become imbued with yeast such that pretty much any
>>>>>>>>>water/sugar addition would do the trick! and yer just not gonna find
>>>>>>>>>a skin like this in the archeological record.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Perzakly.
>>>>>>>> But the funny thing about statistics is this, that if a thing has
>>>>>>>>only a chance in a billion of happening, it's fuken well gonna happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No no no, that's only if it's
>>>>>
>>>>> exactly
>>>>>
>>>>>>>a million to one against.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>(The Adams-Pratchett Axiom of Improbability.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Douglas Adams?
>>>>>> (It's a real axiom, and a lot older than he.)
>>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," "The
>>>> Restaurant at the Edge of the Universe," etc., which makes extreme
>>>> use of various improbabilities and pseudoparadoxes in theoretical
>>>> "physics," incl. "The Improbability Drive."
>>>> All(?) such "theories" exist only in isolation; Adams simply plugs
>>>> them back into mainstream reality and cackles at the "results."
>>>
>>>Yes, yes?
>>>
>>>>> Are you speaking simply of the truism that anything not impossible can
>>>>> happen, no matter how unlikely, or something even grottier?
>>>>
>>>> Approximately; it's merely an "opening lesson" in almost any
>>>> statistics course/book, i.e., that anything that has even a
>>>> vanishingly small probability of happening damwell /will/ eventually
>>>> happen, i.e., that it's inevitable.
>>>> It's a crucial point of subatomic physics, planetology, and
>>>> cosmology often forgotten by the careless and never learned by those
>>>> who would rather be Faithful.
>>>
>>>"Crucial"? I'd go with the more likely stuff, meself, like what happens to
>>>a free neutron after about fifteen minutes or at most within an hour or
>>>two (OK, some may never blow).
>>>
>>>It's enough to make your hair stand on end.
>>>
>>>Not least in its many (and mostly unregarded) implications.
>>>
>>>>> I fixed the API Axiom above. Sorry.
>>>>
>>>> The actual principle has no specific coefficient, and I've never
>>>> heard (to remember it) that it had an attribution name.
>>>
>>>That's Pratchett's emendation of the Adamsian theory of the greater the
>>>improbability the greater the probability.
>>>
>>>> One feels that Zeno would have propounded it, but then he missed
>>>> so damned much that was right next to what he knew that it makes one
>>>> leery of using "any," "all," or "none" in any context outside the
>>>> strictly logical.
>>>
>>>Considering that the propositional logic was not separated out from set
>>>theory until George Boole's _An Investigation of the Laws of Thought_
>>>(1854), and the mathematics of form not separated out from propositional
>>>logic until George Spencer Brown's _Laws of Form_ (1964), I have a
>>>somewhat jaundiced view of earlier philosophy, not to mention the "Age of
>>>Reason".
>>>
>>>The Greeks in particular along with their many splendid achievements
>>>made many philosophical howlers as well, as could only be expected (I
>>>accept and sympathize with "first gropings" as a rational plea in
>>>mitigation of such things as the "spiritual hypothesis", although that
>>>plea withers with time), and moving on to more complex matters one can
>>>only hope that Plato's _Republic_ was a joke, a satire on Sparta and/or
>>>Utopia-building, although one fears not.
>>>
>>>> It's a big universe, and temporally infinite.
>>>
>>>Maybe we're just infinitesimal.
>>
>> AHEM
>> What does that death threat have to do with the price of beer?
>
>Aren't they cutting our beer off, like they did America's soldiers' beer
>in the Korean War, due to Christian women's groups objecting?

I AM NOT THAT OLD, YOU BASTIGE!

--

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

Aratzio - Usenet ruiner #2

 

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:34:57 -0800, Aratzio wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:35:01 -0500, in the land of rec.arts.poems,
> mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
> writing:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:09:38 -0800, Aratzio wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:01:52 -0500, in the land of
>>> alt.hackers.malicious, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> got double
>>> secret probation for writing:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:16:24 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> mimus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:05:00 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:02:08 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:15:37 -0600, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>>>>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:04:48 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:54:59 -0600, TheBookman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:07:23 -0500, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:15:36 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:09:26 +0000, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:24:05 -0500, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bloviated:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:22:01 GMT, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.mercurynews.com/foodheadlines/ci_8311983
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hop and Barley prices have increased dramatically, price for *good*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>beer is going up. Bud-water and Curs unaffected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>good thing i brew my own fermented beverages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the cost is going up, IF you can get the good hops anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can substitute several things for hops with good results, including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>catnip and pot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not to mention all the horrible other things you can wrestle into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>boil-bags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>indeed. hops were not used in beer until rather recently, i believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>between 700 AD and 1,000 AD. before that, they used all kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>stuff, including hot red pepper.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Unless you're referring to red peppecorns (unlikely or at least very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>uncommon, IMO, given the expense), red (chile) peppers cannot have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>used to flavor beer before 1492CE, since they originated from the "New
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>World", along with potatoes and tomatoes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>HTH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Didn't, like, the Toltecs or Olmecs or anyone brew beer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>sure they did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>everyone brewed beer of some sort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>although its still somewhat up in the air about whether beer, wine, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>mead were first on the human fermentables calendar. the probability
>>>>>>>>>>>>is beer or mead, which ferment far faster than wine, but who knows?
>>>>>>>>>>>>were talking like 8000 BC or more back in history.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Right, and cereal grains date back only to 5000 BCE and the founding
>>>>>>>>>>>of Jericho around the discovery of Emmer wheat, or 3000> BCE and rice
>>>>>>>>>>>in the Orient.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Honey is relatively rare (until commercial hay-fields) and incurs
>>>>>>>>>>>some difficulty in the harvest, particulary for a people without
>>>>>>>>>>>ready (made from scratch) fire. Honey is also self-preserving, and
>>>>>>>>>>>will not ferment unless diluted and forced.
>>>>>>>>>>>Berries are likely first of that group, are more common than
>>>>>>>>>>>fruits, esp. the modern, large-pulp varieties, and several will
>>>>>>>>>>>produce all season.
>>>>>>>>>>>However one wonders if Adam actually ate apple or got plonked on
>>>>>>>>>>>natural cider (cf. Frost's "The Cow in Apple-Time"), hence the
>>>>>>>>>>>Injunction.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>However, the most-likely "first" is one of the known root-starches.
>>>>>>>>>>>The earliest under cultivation were various water-lilies (lotus,
>>>>>>>>>>>e.g.) in the Tigris, Nile, Indus, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>What makes it difficult is that written records postdate Jericho,
>>>>>>>>>>>and that the materials of undistilled booze are ephemeral and the
>>>>>>>>>>>tools common pots, obviating archeological evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>making it even harder, one theory has that people travelling around
>>>>>>>>>>even pre civilization would make containers out of skins for water.
>>>>>>>>>>the theory says that they might even put in fruits or honey for taste,
>>>>>>>>>>which of course would have wild yeast on it, and so by seeming magic,
>>>>>>>>>>a skin here or there would produce an alcoholic elixer. and of course
>>>>>>>>>>that skin would become imbued with yeast such that pretty much any
>>>>>>>>>>water/sugar addition would do the trick! and yer just not gonna find
>>>>>>>>>>a skin like this in the archeological record.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Perzakly.
>>>>>>>>> But the funny thing about statistics is this, that if a thing has
>>>>>>>>>only a chance in a billion of happening, it's fuken well gonna happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No no no, that's only if it's
>>>>>>
>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>a million to one against.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>(The Adams-Pratchett Axiom of Improbability.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Douglas Adams?
>>>>>>> (It's a real axiom, and a lot older than he.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," "The
>>>>> Restaurant at the Edge of the Universe," etc., which makes extreme
>>>>> use of various improbabilities and pseudoparadoxes in theoretical
>>>>> "physics," incl. "The Improbability Drive."
>>>>> All(?) such "theories" exist only in isolation; Adams simply plugs
>>>>> them back into mainstream reality and cackles at the "results."
>>>>
>>>>Yes, yes?
>>>>
>>>>>> Are you speaking simply of the truism that anything not impossible can
>>>>>> happen, no matter how unlikely, or something even grottier?
>>>>>
>>>>> Approximately; it's merely an "opening lesson" in almost any
>>>>> statistics course/book, i.e., that anything that has even a
>>>>> vanishingly small probability of happening damwell /will/ eventually
>>>>> happen, i.e., that it's inevitable.
>>>>> It's a crucial point of subatomic physics, planetology, and
>>>>> cosmology often forgotten by the careless and never learned by those
>>>>> who would rather be Faithful.
>>>>
>>>>"Crucial"? I'd go with the more likely stuff, meself, like what happens to
>>>>a free neutron after about fifteen minutes or at most within an hour or
>>>>two (OK, some may never blow).
>>>>
>>>>It's enough to make your hair stand on end.
>>>>
>>>>Not least in its many (and mostly unregarded) implications.
>>>>
>>>>>> I fixed the API Axiom above. Sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>> The actual principle has no specific coefficient, and I've never
>>>>> heard (to remember it) that it had an attribution name.
>>>>
>>>>That's Pratchett's emendation of the Adamsian theory of the greater the
>>>>improbability the greater the probability.
>>>>
>>>>> One feels that Zeno would have propounded it, but then he missed
>>>>> so damned much that was right next to what he knew that it makes one
>>>>> leery of using "any," "all," or "none" in any context outside the
>>>>> strictly logical.
>>>>
>>>>Considering that the propositional logic was not separated out from set
>>>>theory until George Boole's _An Investigation of the Laws of Thought_
>>>>(1854), and the mathematics of form not separated out from propositional
>>>>logic until George Spencer Brown's _Laws of Form_ (1964), I have a
>>>>somewhat jaundiced view of earlier philosophy, not to mention the "Age of
>>>>Reason".
>>>>
>>>>The Greeks in particular along with their many splendid achievements
>>>>made many philosophical howlers as well, as could only be expected (I
>>>>accept and sympathize with "first gropings" as a rational plea in
>>>>mitigation of such things as the "spiritual hypothesis", although that
>>>>plea withers with time), and moving on to more complex matters one can
>>>>only hope that Plato's _Republic_ was a joke, a satire on Sparta and/or
>>>>Utopia-building, although one fears not.
>>>>
>>>>> It's a big universe, and temporally infinite.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe we're just infinitesimal.
>>>
>>> AHEM
>>> What does that death threat have to do with the price of beer?
>>
>>Aren't they cutting our beer off, like they did America's soldiers' beer
>>in the Korean War, due to Christian women's groups objecting?
>
> I AM NOT THAT OLD, YOU BASTIGE!

Gee, you missed all kinds of wild shit.

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

I AM JUST WEST OF THE MANURE PILE

< First known US military "wireless" communication

 

On Feb 24, 3:52 pm, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:34:57 -0800, Aratzio wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:35:01 -0500, in the land of rec.arts.poems,
> > mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
> > writing:
>
> >>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:09:38 -0800, Aratzio wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:01:52 -0500, in the land of
> >>> alt.hackers.malicious, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> got double
> >>> secret probation for writing:
>
> >>>>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:16:24 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>
> >>>>> mimus wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:05:00 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:02:08 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:15:37 -0600, "Dennis M. Hammes"
> >>>>>>>>>><scrawlm...@arvig.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:04:48 -0500, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:54:59 -0600, TheBookman wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:07:23 -0500, dave hillstrom wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:15:36 -0500, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:09:26 +0000, Aratzio wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:24:05 -0500, in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, dave hillstrom <D...@MeOw.OrG>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bloviated:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:22:01 GMT, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.mercurynews.com/foodheadlines/ci_8311983
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hop and Barley prices have increased dramatically, price for *good*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>beer is going up. Bud-water and Curs unaffected.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>good thing i brew my own fermented beverages.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the cost is going up, IF you can get the good hops anymore.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can substitute several things for hops with good results, including
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>catnip and pot.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not to mention all the horrible other things you can wrestle into the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>boil-bags.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>indeed. hops were not used in beer until rather recently, i believe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>between 700 AD and 1,000 AD. before that, they used all kinds of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>stuff, including hot red pepper.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Unless you're referring to red peppecorns (unlikely or at least very
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>uncommon, IMO, given the expense), red (chile) peppers cannot have been
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>used to flavor beer before 1492CE, since they originated from the "New
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>World", along with potatoes and tomatoes.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>HTH.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Didn't, like, the Toltecs or Olmecs or anyone brew beer?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>sure they did.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>everyone brewed beer of some sort.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>although its still somewhat up in the air about whether beer, wine, or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>mead were first on the human fermentables calendar. the probability
> >>>>>>>>>>>>is beer or mead, which ferment far faster than wine, but who knows?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>were talking like 8000 BC or more back in history.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Right, and cereal grains date back only to 5000 BCE and the founding
> >>>>>>>>>>>of Jericho around the discovery of Emmer wheat, or 3000> BCE and rice
> >>>>>>>>>>>in the Orient.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Honey is relatively rare (until commercial hay-fields) and incurs
> >>>>>>>>>>>some difficulty in the harvest, particulary for a people without
> >>>>>>>>>>>ready (made from scratch) fire. Honey is also self-preserving, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>will not ferment unless diluted and forced.
> >>>>>>>>>>>Berries are likely first of that group, are more common than
> >>>>>>>>>>>fruits, esp. the modern, large-pulp varieties, and several will
> >>>>>>>>>>>produce all season.
> >>>>>>>>>>>However one wonders if Adam actually ate apple or got plonked on
> >>>>>>>>>>>natural cider (cf. Frost's "The Cow in Apple-Time"), hence the
> >>>>>>>>>>>Injunction.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>However, the most-likely "first" is one of the known root-starches.
> >>>>>>>>>>>The earliest under cultivation were various water-lilies (lotus,
> >>>>>>>>>>>e.g.) in the Tigris, Nile, Indus, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>What makes it difficult is that written records postdate Jericho,
> >>>>>>>>>>>and that the materials of undistilled booze are ephemeral and the
> >>>>>>>>>>>tools common pots, obviating archeological evidence.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>making it even harder, one theory has that people travelling around
> >>>>>>>>>>even pre civilization would make containers out of skins for water.
> >>>>>>>>>>the theory says that they might even put in fruits or honey for taste,
> >>>>>>>>>>which of course would have wild yeast on it, and so by seeming magic,
> >>>>>>>>>>a skin here or there would produce an alcoholic elixer. and of course
> >>>>>>>>>>that skin would become imbued with yeast such that pretty much any
> >>>>>>>>>>water/sugar addition would do the trick! and yer just not gonna find
> >>>>>>>>>>a skin like this in the archeological record.
>
> >>>>>>>>>Perzakly.
> >>>>>>>>> But the funny thing about statistics is this, that if a thing has
> >>>>>>>>>only a chance in a billion of happening, it's fuken well gonna happen.
>
> >>>>>>>>No no no, that's only if it's
>
> >>>>>> exactly
>
> >>>>>>>>a million to one against.
>
> >>>>>>>>(The Adams-Pratchett Axiom of Improbability.)
>
> >>>>>>>Douglas Adams?
> >>>>>>> (It's a real axiom, and a lot older than he.)
>
> >>>>>> ?
>
> >>>>> Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," "The
> >>>>> Restaurant at the Edge of the Universe," etc., which makes extreme
> >>>>> use of various improbabilities and pseudoparadoxes in theoretical
> >>>>> "physics," incl. "The Improbability Drive."
> >>>>> All(?) such "theories" exist only in isolation; Adams simply plugs
> >>>>> them back into mainstream reality and cackles at the "results."
>
> >>>>Yes, yes?
>
> >>>>>> Are you speaking simply of the truism that anything not impossible can
> >>>>>> happen, no matter how unlikely, or something even grottier?
>
> >>>>> Approximately; it's merely an "opening lesson" in almost any
> >>>>> statistics course/book, i.e., that anything that has even a
> >>>>> vanishingly small probability of happening damwell /will/ eventually
> >>>>> happen, i.e., that it's inevitable.
> >>>>> It's a crucial point of subatomic physics, planetology, and
> >>>>> cosmology often forgotten by the careless and never learned by those
> >>>>> who would rather be Faithful.
>
> >>>>"Crucial"? I'd go with the more likely stuff, meself, like what happens to
> >>>>a free neutron after about fifteen minutes or at most within an hour or
> >>>>two (OK, some may never blow).
>
> >>>>It's enough to make your hair stand on end.
>
> >>>>Not least in its many (and mostly unregarded) implications.
>
> >>>>>> I fixed the API Axiom above. Sorry.
>
> >>>>> The actual principle has no specific coefficient, and I've never
> >>>>> heard (to remember it) that it had an attribution name.
>
> >>>>That's Pratchett's emendation of the Adamsian theory of the greater the
> >>>>improbability the greater the probability.
>
> >>>>> One feels that Zeno would have propounded it, but then he missed
> >>>>> so damned much that was right next to what he knew that it makes one
> >>>>> leery of using "any," "all," or "none" in any context outside the
> >>>>> strictly logical.
>
> >>>>Considering that the propositional logic was not separated out from set
> >>>>theory until George Boole's _An Investigation of the Laws of Thought_
> >>>>(1854), and the mathematics of form not separated out from propositional
> >>>>logic until George Spencer Brown's _Laws of Form_ (1964), I have a
> >>>>somewhat jaundiced view of earlier philosophy, not to mention the "Age of
> >>>>Reason".
>
> >>>>The Greeks in particular along with their many splendid achievements
> >>>>made many philosophical howlers as well, as could only be expected (I
> >>>>accept and sympathize with "first gropings" as a rational plea in
> >>>>mitigation of such things as the "spiritual hypothesis", although that
> >>>>plea withers with time), and moving on to more complex matters one can
> >>>>only hope that Plato's _Republic_ was a joke, a satire on Sparta and/or
> >>>>Utopia-building, although one fears not.
>
> >>>>> It's a big universe, and temporally infinite.
>
> >>>>Maybe we're just infinitesimal.
>
> >>> AHEM
> >>> What does that death threat have to do with the price of beer?
>
> >>Aren't they cutting our beer off, like they did America's soldiers' beer
> >>in the Korean War, due to Christian women's groups objecting?
>
> > I AM NOT THAT OLD, YOU BASTIGE!
>
> Gee, you missed all kinds of wild shit.
>
I had a very good microbrew IPA last night. Very hoppy, and sweet. It
was interesting. I'm a big fan of the "red" beers. The best one I've
ever had was broowed at a microbrew that no longer exists. It was so
sweet, dry, and had such a rich head it made any irish porter or stout
look like a bubble bath.

In part of the story of last night, the place I had it at was a
restaurant that i've never been to before, and it turned out to be a
very, very classy five-star restaurant. I, of course, was wearing the
uniform of my generation: a hoodie and jeans. Boy oh boy you should
have seen the faces of the rich old WASPs.
It was good though. Delicious steak.

Thank you for listening.
--
Slipped Moebius
mhm28x9

 

dave hillstrom wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:16:24 -0600, "Dennis M. Hammes"
> <scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>
>
>>mimus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:05:00 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:02:08 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:15:37 -0600, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:04:48 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:54:59 -0600, TheBookman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:07:23 -0500, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:15:36 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:09:26 +0000, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:24:05 -0500, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bloviated:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:22:01 GMT, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.mercurynews.com/foodheadlines/ci_8311983
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hop and Barley prices have increased dramatically, price for *good*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>beer is going up. Bud-water and Curs unaffected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>good thing i brew my own fermented beverages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the cost is going up, IF you can get the good hops anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can substitute several things for hops with good results, including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>catnip and pot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not to mention all the horrible other things you can wrestle into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>boil-bags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>indeed. hops were not used in beer until rather recently, i believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>between 700 AD and 1,000 AD. before that, they used all kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>stuff, including hot red pepper.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Unless you're referring to red peppecorns (unlikely or at least very
>>>>>>>>>>>uncommon, IMO, given the expense), red (chile) peppers cannot have been
>>>>>>>>>>>used to flavor beer before 1492CE, since they originated from the "New
>>>>>>>>>>>World", along with potatoes and tomatoes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>HTH.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Didn't, like, the Toltecs or Olmecs or anyone brew beer?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>sure they did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>everyone brewed beer of some sort.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>although its still somewhat up in the air about whether beer, wine, or
>>>>>>>>>mead were first on the human fermentables calendar. the probability
>>>>>>>>>is beer or mead, which ferment far faster than wine, but who knows?
>>>>>>>>>were talking like 8000 BC or more back in history.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Right, and cereal grains date back only to 5000 BCE and the founding
>>>>>>>>of Jericho around the discovery of Emmer wheat, or 3000> BCE and rice
>>>>>>>>in the Orient.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Honey is relatively rare (until commercial hay-fields) and incurs
>>>>>>>>some difficulty in the harvest, particulary for a people without
>>>>>>>>ready (made from scratch) fire. Honey is also self-preserving, and
>>>>>>>>will not ferment unless diluted and forced.
>>>>>>>>Berries are likely first of that group, are more common than
>>>>>>>>fruits, esp. the modern, large-pulp varieties, and several will
>>>>>>>>produce all season.
>>>>>>>>However one wonders if Adam actually ate apple or got plonked on
>>>>>>>>natural cider (cf. Frost's "The Cow in Apple-Time"), hence the
>>>>>>>>Injunction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>However, the most-likely "first" is one of the known root-starches.
>>>>>>>>The earliest under cultivation were various water-lilies (lotus,
>>>>>>>>e.g.) in the Tigris, Nile, Indus, etc.
>>>>>>>>What makes it difficult is that written records postdate Jericho,
>>>>>>>>and that the materials of undistilled booze are ephemeral and the
>>>>>>>>tools common pots, obviating archeological evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>making it even harder, one theory has that people travelling around
>>>>>>>even pre civilization would make containers out of skins for water.
>>>>>>>the theory says that they might even put in fruits or honey for taste,
>>>>>>>which of course would have wild yeast on it, and so by seeming magic,
>>>>>>>a skin here or there would produce an alcoholic elixer. and of course
>>>>>>>that skin would become imbued with yeast such that pretty much any
>>>>>>>water/sugar addition would do the trick! and yer just not gonna find
>>>>>>>a skin like this in the archeological record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Perzakly.
>>>>>> But the funny thing about statistics is this, that if a thing has
>>>>>>only a chance in a billion of happening, it's fuken well gonna happen.
>>>>>
>>>>>No no no, that's only if it's
>>>
>>>
>>>exactly
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>a million to one against.
>>>>>
>>>>>(The Adams-Pratchett Axiom of Improbability.)
>>>>
>>>>Douglas Adams?
>>>> (It's a real axiom, and a lot older than he.)
>>>
>>>
>>>?
>>
>>
>>Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," "The
>>Restaurant at the Edge of the Universe," etc., which makes extreme
>>use of various improbabilities and pseudoparadoxes in theoretical
>>"physics," incl. "The Improbability Drive."
>> All(?) such "theories" exist only in isolation; Adams simply plugs
>>them back into mainstream reality and cackles at the "results."
>>
>>
>>>Are you speaking simply of the truism that anything not impossible can
>>>happen, no matter how unlikely, or something even grottier?
>>
>>
>>Approximately; it's merely an "opening lesson" in almost any
>>statistics course/book, i.e., that anything that has even a
>>vanishingly small probability of happening damwell /will/ eventually
>>happen, i.e., that it's inevitable.
>> It's a crucial point of subatomic physics, planetology, and
>>cosmology often forgotten by the careless and never learned by those
>>who would rather be Faithful.
>>
>>
>>>I fixed the API Axiom above. Sorry.
>>>
>>
>>The actual principle has no specific coefficient, and I've never
>>heard (to remember it) that it had an attribution name.
>> One feels that Zeno would have propounded it, but then he missed
>>so damned much that was right next to what he knew that it makes one
>>leery of using "any," "all," or "none" in any context outside the
>>strictly logical.
>> It's a big universe, and temporally infinite.
>
>
> black holes are just as likely to emit electromagnetic waves as they
> are to spit out a 1963 chevy pickup with pink fuzzy dice, so says
> hawking.
>

Black Holes are the other side of White Holes are the other side of
Black Holes.
"Quantity is bounded by itself."
I keep forgetting I may be the only one who ever looked for
Aristotle's missing Entity Axiom, let alone found it (took four years
after I knew what it had to look like), or that the want of it threw
Parmenides and Aquinas into infinite regress before it threw Hawking
into infinitesimal regress.
Hawking recanted "naked singularity" in 1998.

--
-------(m+
~/)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org

 

mimus wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:16:24 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>
>
>>mimus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:05:00 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:02:08 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:15:37 -0600, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:04:48 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:54:59 -0600, TheBookman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:07:23 -0500, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:15:36 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:09:26 +0000, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:24:05 -0500, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bloviated:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:22:01 GMT, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.mercurynews.com/foodheadlines/ci_8311983
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hop and Barley prices have increased dramatically, price for *good*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>beer is going up. Bud-water and Curs unaffected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>good thing i brew my own fermented beverages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the cost is going up, IF you can get the good hops anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can substitute several things for hops with good results, including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>catnip and pot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not to mention all the horrible other things you can wrestle into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>boil-bags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>indeed. hops were not used in beer until rather recently, i believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>between 700 AD and 1,000 AD. before that, they used all kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>stuff, including hot red pepper.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Unless you're referring to red peppecorns (unlikely or at least very
>>>>>>>>>>>uncommon, IMO, given the expense), red (chile) peppers cannot have been
>>>>>>>>>>>used to flavor beer before 1492CE, since they originated from the "New
>>>>>>>>>>>World", along with potatoes and tomatoes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>HTH.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Didn't, like, the Toltecs or Olmecs or anyone brew beer?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>sure they did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>everyone brewed beer of some sort.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>although its still somewhat up in the air about whether beer, wine, or
>>>>>>>>>mead were first on the human fermentables calendar. the probability
>>>>>>>>>is beer or mead, which ferment far faster than wine, but who knows?
>>>>>>>>>were talking like 8000 BC or more back in history.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Right, and cereal grains date back only to 5000 BCE and the founding
>>>>>>>>of Jericho around the discovery of Emmer wheat, or 3000> BCE and rice
>>>>>>>>in the Orient.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Honey is relatively rare (until commercial hay-fields) and incurs
>>>>>>>>some difficulty in the harvest, particulary for a people without
>>>>>>>>ready (made from scratch) fire. Honey is also self-preserving, and
>>>>>>>>will not ferment unless diluted and forced.
>>>>>>>>Berries are likely first of that group, are more common than
>>>>>>>>fruits, esp. the modern, large-pulp varieties, and several will
>>>>>>>>produce all season.
>>>>>>>>However one wonders if Adam actually ate apple or got plonked on
>>>>>>>>natural cider (cf. Frost's "The Cow in Apple-Time"), hence the
>>>>>>>>Injunction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>However, the most-likely "first" is one of the known root-starches.
>>>>>>>>The earliest under cultivation were various water-lilies (lotus,
>>>>>>>>e.g.) in the Tigris, Nile, Indus, etc.
>>>>>>>>What makes it difficult is that written records postdate Jericho,
>>>>>>>>and that the materials of undistilled booze are ephemeral and the
>>>>>>>>tools common pots, obviating archeological evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>making it even harder, one theory has that people travelling around
>>>>>>>even pre civilization would make containers out of skins for water.
>>>>>>>the theory says that they might even put in fruits or honey for taste,
>>>>>>>which of course would have wild yeast on it, and so by seeming magic,
>>>>>>>a skin here or there would produce an alcoholic elixer. and of course
>>>>>>>that skin would become imbued with yeast such that pretty much any
>>>>>>>water/sugar addition would do the trick! and yer just not gonna find
>>>>>>>a skin like this in the archeological record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Perzakly.
>>>>>> But the funny thing about statistics is this, that if a thing has
>>>>>>only a chance in a billion of happening, it's fuken well gonna happen.
>>>>>
>>>>>No no no, that's only if it's
>>>
>>>exactly
>>>
>>>
>>>>>a million to one against.
>>>>>
>>>>>(The Adams-Pratchett Axiom of Improbability.)
>>>>
>>>>Douglas Adams?
>>>> (It's a real axiom, and a lot older than he.)
>>>
>>>?
>>
>>Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," "The
>>Restaurant at the Edge of the Universe," etc., which makes extreme
>>use of various improbabilities and pseudoparadoxes in theoretical
>>"physics," incl. "The Improbability Drive."
>> All(?) such "theories" exist only in isolation; Adams simply plugs
>>them back into mainstream reality and cackles at the "results."
>
>
> Yes, yes?
>
>
>>>Are you speaking simply of the truism that anything not impossible can
>>>happen, no matter how unlikely, or something even grottier?
>>
>>Approximately; it's merely an "opening lesson" in almost any
>>statistics course/book, i.e., that anything that has even a
>>vanishingly small probability of happening damwell /will/ eventually
>>happen, i.e., that it's inevitable.
>> It's a crucial point of subatomic physics, planetology, and
>>cosmology often forgotten by the careless and never learned by those
>>who would rather be Faithful.
>
>
> "Crucial"? I'd go with the more likely stuff, meself, like what happens to
> a free neutron after about fifteen minutes or at most within an hour or
> two (OK, some may never blow).


Most of my "somewheres" have the half-life of a neutron at ~ten minutes.
And the result is hydrogen.

>
> It's enough to make your hair stand on end.


You might could, as you've just jotted me into considering the most
probable emission of a White Hole to be a neutron (conservation of
charge across the Center Horizon, etc.), which blows fresh hydrogen
into the equation (universe) in ten minutes, a.s.
It's /hideously/ simpler than electron/positron or
proton/antiproton pairs, e.g.; Occam LUUUves you, tnx.
And while squeezing +- pairs most likely results in a pair of
gamma rays, there's no theory or evidence that they cross the Center
Horizon any more than they do the Event Horizon, whereas squeezing an
incompressible egg causes it to be laid, so...

>
> Not least in its many (and mostly unregarded) implications.
>

Well, there's one more.

>
>>>I fixed the API Axiom above. Sorry.
>>
>>The actual principle has no specific coefficient, and I've never
>>heard (to remember it) that it had an attribution name.
>
>
> That's Pratchett's emendation of the Adamsian theory of the greater the
> improbability the greater the probability.
>

Hunh. It's one way to put it. Yes.

>
>> One feels that Zeno would have propounded it, but then he missed
>>so damned much that was right next to what he knew that it makes one
>>leery of using "any," "all," or "none" in any context outside the
>>strictly logical.
>
>
> Considering that the propositional logic was not separated out from set
> theory until George Boole's _An Investigation of the Laws of Thought_
> (1854), and the mathematics of form not separated out from propositional
> logic until George Spencer Brown's _Laws of Form_ (1964), I have a
> somewhat jaundiced view of earlier philosophy, not to mention the "Age of
> Reason".


Aristotle's sets were merely incomplete, but he founded a
propositional logic on them that had become a primer litany by the
Middle Ages: "Barbara, Celarent, Dorii, Fortieris," each with rules
of conversion, inversion, and contraposition.
Boole completed the sets far more than the priests could permit,
which is why they've been bitching about "golems" ever since (cf.
Wiener's Second Edition of /Cybernetics/ (1964) and Crick's recanting
of DNA (~1985)).
I didn't find any inclusions of the "old logic" into Boolean/Venn
notations, or the latter into conjunctions/prepositions, so I did it
myself.

>
> The Greeks in particular along with their many splendid achievements
> made many philosophical howlers as well, as could only be expected (I
> accept and sympathize with "first gropings" as a rational plea in
> mitigation of such things as the "spiritual hypothesis", although that
> plea withers with time), and moving on to more complex matters one can
> only hope that Plato's _Republic_ was a joke, a satire on Sparta and/or
> Utopia-building, although one fears not.
>

It wasn't, sri. He /knew/ who buttered his bread in return for
saying they "ruled."
"Once the State has been established, there is no further need for
philosophers."
Why Republics chew themselves out of raw material while drowning
in their own shit and market gluts.
The only animal besides sheep to need shepherds, and for the same
reason (not "wolves," but eating holes in their pastures).
Credit Cards eat holes out the other side of their pastures,
proving to them that they have not eaten holes in their pastures.
White Holes On Credit, heh.
(Sri, they're still Black Holes.)

>
>> It's a big universe, and temporally infinite.
>
>
> Maybe we're just infinitesimal.
>

Close. (But no cigar.)
Unlike the sun, we go out every night.
And we're so taken with the fact that the soul that wakes up in
the morning is the same one that went to bed, that we have no use for
the fact that the one that goes to bed is not the same one that woke up.

Class B waves /cease to exist/ every half cycle. That line between
the lumps is not a "signal" or "signal record," but a record of the
fact that the recording pen has not ceased to exist along with the
signal.
Mickey's Little Hand is a fuken liar.

--
-------(m+
~/)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org

 

Aratzio wrote:

>
> AHEM
> What does that death threat have to do with the price of beer?
>

I vill hoist a coot Cherman beer to your memory, ja.
(Iff I can /affort/ it, ha.)

--
-------(m+
~/)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org

 

mimus wrote:

>
> Aren't they cutting our beer off, like they did America's soldiers' beer
> in the Korean War, due to Christian women's groups objecting?
>

No wonder we didn't win.

--
-------(m+
~/)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org

 

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:06:04 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:

> mimus wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:16:24 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>
>>>mimus wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:05:00 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:02:08 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:15:37 -0600, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:04:48 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:54:59 -0600, TheBookman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:07:23 -0500, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:15:36 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:09:26 +0000, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:24:05 -0500, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bloviated:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:22:01 GMT, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.mercurynews.com/foodheadlines/ci_8311983
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hop and Barley prices have increased dramatically, price for *good*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>beer is going up. Bud-water and Curs unaffected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>good thing i brew my own fermented beverages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the cost is going up, IF you can get the good hops anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can substitute several things for hops with good results, including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>catnip and pot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not to mention all the horrible other things you can wrestle into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>boil-bags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>indeed. hops were not used in beer until rather recently, i believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>between 700 AD and 1,000 AD. before that, they used all kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>stuff, including hot red pepper.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Unless you're referring to red peppecorns (unlikely or at least very
>>>>>>>>>>>>uncommon, IMO, given the expense), red (chile) peppers cannot have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>used to flavor beer before 1492CE, since they originated from the "New
>>>>>>>>>>>>World", along with potatoes and tomatoes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>HTH.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Didn't, like, the Toltecs or Olmecs or anyone brew beer?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>sure they did.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>everyone brewed beer of some sort.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>although its still somewhat up in the air about whether beer, wine, or
>>>>>>>>>>mead were first on the human fermentables calendar. the probability
>>>>>>>>>>is beer or mead, which ferment far faster than wine, but who knows?
>>>>>>>>>>were talking like 8000 BC or more back in history.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Right, and cereal grains date back only to 5000 BCE and the founding
>>>>>>>>>of Jericho around the discovery of Emmer wheat, or 3000> BCE and rice
>>>>>>>>>in the Orient.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Honey is relatively rare (until commercial hay-fields) and incurs
>>>>>>>>>some difficulty in the harvest, particulary for a people without
>>>>>>>>>ready (made from scratch) fire. Honey is also self-preserving, and
>>>>>>>>>will not ferment unless diluted and forced.
>>>>>>>>>Berries are likely first of that group, are more common than
>>>>>>>>>fruits, esp. the modern, large-pulp varieties, and several will
>>>>>>>>>produce all season.
>>>>>>>>>However one wonders if Adam actually ate apple or got plonked on
>>>>>>>>>natural cider (cf. Frost's "The Cow in Apple-Time"), hence the
>>>>>>>>>Injunction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>However, the most-likely "first" is one of the known root-starches.
>>>>>>>>>The earliest under cultivation were various water-lilies (lotus,
>>>>>>>>>e.g.) in the Tigris, Nile, Indus, etc.
>>>>>>>>>What makes it difficult is that written records postdate Jericho,
>>>>>>>>>and that the materials of undistilled booze are ephemeral and the
>>>>>>>>>tools common pots, obviating archeological evidence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>making it even harder, one theory has that people travelling around
>>>>>>>>even pre civilization would make containers out of skins for water.
>>>>>>>>the theory says that they might even put in fruits or honey for taste,
>>>>>>>>which of course would have wild yeast on it, and so by seeming magic,
>>>>>>>>a skin here or there would produce an alcoholic elixer. and of course
>>>>>>>>that skin would become imbued with yeast such that pretty much any
>>>>>>>>water/sugar addition would do the trick! and yer just not gonna find
>>>>>>>>a skin like this in the archeological record.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Perzakly.
>>>>>>> But the funny thing about statistics is this, that if a thing has
>>>>>>>only a chance in a billion of happening, it's fuken well gonna happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No no no, that's only if it's
>>>>
>>>>exactly
>>>>
>>>>>>a million to one against.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(The Adams-Pratchett Axiom of Improbability.)
>>>>>
>>>>>Douglas Adams?
>>>>> (It's a real axiom, and a lot older than he.)
>>>>
>>>>?
>>>
>>>Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," "The
>>>Restaurant at the Edge of the Universe," etc., which makes extreme
>>>use of various improbabilities and pseudoparadoxes in theoretical
>>>"physics," incl. "The Improbability Drive."
>>> All(?) such "theories" exist only in isolation; Adams simply plugs
>>>them back into mainstream reality and cackles at the "results."
>>
>> Yes, yes?
>>
>>>>Are you speaking simply of the truism that anything not impossible can
>>>>happen, no matter how unlikely, or something even grottier?
>>>
>>>Approximately; it's merely an "opening lesson" in almost any
>>>statistics course/book, i.e., that anything that has even a
>>>vanishingly small probability of happening damwell /will/ eventually
>>>happen, i.e., that it's inevitable.
>>> It's a crucial point of subatomic physics, planetology, and
>>>cosmology often forgotten by the careless and never learned by those
>>>who would rather be Faithful.
>>
>> "Crucial"? I'd go with the more likely stuff, meself, like what happens to
>> a free neutron after about fifteen minutes or at most within an hour or
>> two (OK, some may never blow).
>
> Most of my "somewheres" have the half-life of a neutron at ~ten minutes.
> And the result is hydrogen.
>
>> It's enough to make your hair stand on end.
>
> You might could, as you've just jotted me into considering the most
> probable emission of a White Hole to be a neutron (conservation of
> charge across the Center Horizon, etc.), which blows fresh hydrogen
> into the equation (universe) in ten minutes, a.s.
> It's /hideously/ simpler than electron/positron or
> proton/antiproton pairs, e.g.; Occam LUUUves you, tnx.

The next step after all the little bangs is globular clusters.

> And while squeezing +- pairs most likely results in a pair of
> gamma rays, there's no theory or evidence that they cross the Center
> Horizon any more than they do the Event Horizon, whereas squeezing an
> incompressible egg causes it to be laid, so...

Chicken or turtle?

>> Not least in its many (and mostly unregarded) implications.
>
> Well, there's one more.
>
>>>>I fixed the API Axiom above. Sorry.
>>>
>>>The actual principle has no specific coefficient, and I've never
>>>heard (to remember it) that it had an attribution name.
>>
>> That's Pratchett's emendation of the Adamsian theory of the greater the
>> improbability the greater the probability.
>
> Hunh. It's one way to put it. Yes.

They're really only talking about _extreme_ im/probabilities.

>>> One feels that Zeno would have propounded it, but then he missed
>>>so damned much that was right next to what he knew that it makes one
>>>leery of using "any," "all," or "none" in any context outside the
>>>strictly logical.
>>
>> Considering that the propositional logic was not separated out from set
>> theory until George Boole's _An Investigation of the Laws of Thought_
>> (1854), and the mathematics of form not separated out from propositional
>> logic until George Spencer Brown's _Laws of Form_ (1964), I have a
>> somewhat jaundiced view of earlier philosophy, not to mention the "Age of
>> Reason".
>
> Aristotle's sets were merely incomplete, but he founded a
> propositional logic on them that had become a primer litany by the
> Middle Ages: "Barbara, Celarent, Dorii, Fortieris," each with rules
> of conversion, inversion, and contraposition.
> Boole completed the sets far more than the priests could permit,
> which is why they've been bitching about "golems" ever since (cf.
> Wiener's Second Edition of /Cybernetics/ (1964) and Crick's recanting
> of DNA (~1985)).

?

> I didn't find any inclusions of the "old logic" into Boolean/Venn
> notations, or the latter into conjunctions/prepositions, so I did it
> myself.

See Appendix 2 of _Laws of Form_ for the propositional logical foundation
of set reasoning . . . .

>> The Greeks in particular along with their many splendid achievements
>> made many philosophical howlers as well, as could only be expected (I
>> accept and sympathize with "first gropings" as a rational plea in
>> mitigation of such things as the "spiritual hypothesis", although that
>> plea withers with time), and moving on to more complex matters one can
>> only hope that Plato's _Republic_ was a joke, a satire on Sparta and/or
>> Utopia-building, although one fears not.
>
> It wasn't, sri. He /knew/ who buttered his bread in return for saying
> they "ruled."

I've always enjoyed the widespread respect-- as evidenced by the very
adoption of the title to be representative-- accorded Thomas More's
_Utopia_, under which only Christians could be citizens, Jews second-class
citizens, Moslems slaves, and atheists robbed or murdered with legal
impunity:

It says so much about More and Christianity and "Western Culture" over the
last several centuries.

> "Once the State has been established, there is no further need for
> philosophers."

A republic of philosophers, as democratic as possible without completely
paralyzing emergency executive action (needing upheld quickly by
oversight), is the only State; all else is slavery.

I believe we were discussing extreme improbabilities?

I'd start with requiring a passing grade in logic to graduate from high
school, and find it peculiar, very peculiar, almost astonishing, that all
the various schemes of "educational reform" in the United States,
propounded by practically everyone involved except the students
themselves, never ever mention that.

An "education" without logic is hardly the education of a citizen; it
seems more like an indoctrination of slaves.

> Why Republics chew themselves out of raw material while drowning
> in their own shit and market gluts.

Kingdoms and theocracies and plutocracies don't?

> The only animal besides sheep to need shepherds, and for the same
> reason (not "wolves," but eating holes in their pastures).

Where do the shepherds come from, and how are they selected, and by whom?

> Credit Cards eat holes out the other side of their pastures,
> proving to them that they have not eaten holes in their pastures.
> White Holes On Credit, heh.
> (Sri, they're still Black Holes.)
>
>>> It's a big universe, and temporally infinite.
>>
>> Maybe we're just infinitesimal.
>
> Close. (But no cigar.)
> Unlike the sun, we go out every night.

Um. We really don't. Proof: Look who wakes up there every morning.

For good or ill is another question.

> And we're so taken with the fact that the soul that wakes up in
> the morning is the same one that went to bed, that we have no use for
> the fact that the one that goes to bed is not the same one that woke up.
>
> Class B waves /cease to exist/ every half cycle. That line between
> the lumps is not a "signal" or "signal record," but a record of the
> fact that the recording pen has not ceased to exist along with the
> signal.
> Mickey's Little Hand is a fuken liar.

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

This is part of the eternal wonder of the universe
as man forages out to discover in the womb of time
the nascence of his individuality in the motherhood of possibility.

< Malzberg

 

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 05:32:56 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:

> dave hillstrom wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:16:24 -0600, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>> <scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>
>>>mimus wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:05:00 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:02:08 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:15:37 -0600, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:04:48 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:54:59 -0600, TheBookman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:07:23 -0500, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:15:36 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:09:26 +0000, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:24:05 -0500, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bloviated:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:22:01 GMT, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.mercurynews.com/foodheadlines/ci_8311983
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hop and Barley prices have increased dramatically, price for *good*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>beer is going up. Bud-water and Curs unaffected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>good thing i brew my own fermented beverages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the cost is going up, IF you can get the good hops anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can substitute several things for hops with good results, including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>catnip and pot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not to mention all the horrible other things you can wrestle into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>boil-bags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>indeed. hops were not used in beer until rather recently, i believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>between 700 AD and 1,000 AD. before that, they used all kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>stuff, including hot red pepper.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Unless you're referring to red peppecorns (unlikely or at least very
>>>>>>>>>>>>uncommon, IMO, given the expense), red (chile) peppers cannot have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>used to flavor beer before 1492CE, since they originated from the "New
>>>>>>>>>>>>World", along with potatoes and tomatoes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>HTH.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Didn't, like, the Toltecs or Olmecs or anyone brew beer?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>sure they did.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>everyone brewed beer of some sort.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>although its still somewhat up in the air about whether beer, wine, or
>>>>>>>>>>mead were first on the human fermentables calendar. the probability
>>>>>>>>>>is beer or mead, which ferment far faster than wine, but who knows?
>>>>>>>>>>were talking like 8000 BC or more back in history.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Right, and cereal grains date back only to 5000 BCE and the founding
>>>>>>>>>of Jericho around the discovery of Emmer wheat, or 3000> BCE and rice
>>>>>>>>>in the Orient.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Honey is relatively rare (until commercial hay-fields) and incurs
>>>>>>>>>some difficulty in the harvest, particulary for a people without
>>>>>>>>>ready (made from scratch) fire. Honey is also self-preserving, and
>>>>>>>>>will not ferment unless diluted and forced.
>>>>>>>>>Berries are likely first of that group, are more common than
>>>>>>>>>fruits, esp. the modern, large-pulp varieties, and several will
>>>>>>>>>produce all season.
>>>>>>>>>However one wonders if Adam actually ate apple or got plonked on
>>>>>>>>>natural cider (cf. Frost's "The Cow in Apple-Time"), hence the
>>>>>>>>>Injunction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>However, the most-likely "first" is one of the known root-starches.
>>>>>>>>>The earliest under cultivation were various water-lilies (lotus,
>>>>>>>>>e.g.) in the Tigris, Nile, Indus, etc.
>>>>>>>>>What makes it difficult is that written records postdate Jericho,
>>>>>>>>>and that the materials of undistilled booze are ephemeral and the
>>>>>>>>>tools common pots, obviating archeological evidence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>making it even harder, one theory has that people travelling around
>>>>>>>>even pre civilization would make containers out of skins for water.
>>>>>>>>the theory says that they might even put in fruits or honey for taste,
>>>>>>>>which of course would have wild yeast on it, and so by seeming magic,
>>>>>>>>a skin here or there would produce an alcoholic elixer. and of course
>>>>>>>>that skin would become imbued with yeast such that pretty much any
>>>>>>>>water/sugar addition would do the trick! and yer just not gonna find
>>>>>>>>a skin like this in the archeological record.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Perzakly.
>>>>>>> But the funny thing about statistics is this, that if a thing has
>>>>>>>only a chance in a billion of happening, it's fuken well gonna happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No no no, that's only if it's
>>>>
>>>>exactly
>>>
>>>>>>a million to one against.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(The Adams-Pratchett Axiom of Improbability.)
>>>>>
>>>>>Douglas Adams?
>>>>> (It's a real axiom, and a lot older than he.)
>>>>
>>>>?
>>>
>>>Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," "The
>>>Restaurant at the Edge of the Universe," etc., which makes extreme
>>>use of various improbabilities and pseudoparadoxes in theoretical
>>>"physics," incl. "The Improbability Drive."
>>> All(?) such "theories" exist only in isolation; Adams simply plugs
>>>them back into mainstream reality and cackles at the "results."
>>>
>>>>Are you speaking simply of the truism that anything not impossible can
>>>>happen, no matter how unlikely, or something even grottier?
>>>
>>>Approximately; it's merely an "opening lesson" in almost any
>>>statistics course/book, i.e., that anything that has even a
>>>vanishingly small probability of happening damwell /will/ eventually
>>>happen, i.e., that it's inevitable.
>>> It's a crucial point of subatomic physics, planetology, and
>>>cosmology often forgotten by the careless and never learned by those
>>>who would rather be Faithful.
>>>
>>>>I fixed the API Axiom above. Sorry.
>>>
>>>The actual principle has no specific coefficient, and I've never
>>>heard (to remember it) that it had an attribution name.
>>> One feels that Zeno would have propounded it, but then he missed
>>>so damned much that was right next to what he knew that it makes one
>>>leery of using "any," "all," or "none" in any context outside the
>>>strictly logical.
>>> It's a big universe, and temporally infinite.
>>
>> black holes are just as likely to emit electromagnetic waves as they
>> are to spit out a 1963 chevy pickup with pink fuzzy dice, so says
>> hawking.
>
> Black Holes are the other side of White Holes are the other side of
> Black Holes.
> "Quantity is bounded by itself."
> I keep forgetting I may be the only one who ever looked for
> Aristotle's missing Entity Axiom, let alone found it (took four years
> after I knew what it had to look like), or that the want of it threw
> Parmenides and Aquinas into infinite regress before it threw Hawking
> into infinitesimal regress.
> Hawking recanted "naked singularity" in 1998.

The quote above is what you are calling the axiom? it is nice. And vague.

I was so repulsed by Aristotle's fake prediction ("Either there will be a
sea-battle tomorrow, or not"-- if you "predict" ALL POSSIBLE COURSES,
you're not predicting at all, even when the total set of "predictions" is
distributed among several "predictors", which is how "psychics" and
"economic forecasters" and so on work) and the bit about women having
fewer teeth than men (there comes a point where theorizing without
verification becomes reprehensible) that I resent looking into Aristotle
even for the good stuff . . . .

That applies to Plato, too. In spades.

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

I am a Shing. All Shing are liars. Am I, then, a Shing lying to you, in
which case of course I am not a Shing, but a non-Shing, lying? Or is it a
lie that all Shing lie? But I am a Shing, truly; and truly I lie.

< _City of Illusions_

 

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:08:57 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:

> mimus wrote:
>
>> Aren't they cutting our beer off, like they did America's soldiers' beer
>> in the Korean War, due to Christian women's groups objecting?
>
> No wonder we didn't win.

Naw, that was a political decision, once the Chinese were being rolled
back up the goddam peninsula (the second time North for many of the
American/UN troops, after the second time South), to stop at the Parallel,
instead of pursuing it.

The war had become a slaughterhouse for the Chinese by that point.

They couldn't have done a thing if the UN forces had moved on further
North to the Yalu again.

Remember, Stalin was supposed to have supplied air-support to the Chinese,
and backed out.

Otherwise the Chinese troops with Soviet air-support would've likely swept
the UN and South Korean forces into the sea off Pusan, or, if they didn't,
it would've been a damned close-run thing.

Again.

("Not the Naktong again!")

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

"The math is easy," said Chaos.

< _Thief of Time_

 

mimus wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 05:32:56 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>
>
>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:16:24 -0600, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:05:00 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:02:08 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:15:37 -0600, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>>>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:04:48 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:54:59 -0600, TheBookman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:07:23 -0500, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:15:36 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:09:26 +0000, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:24:05 -0500, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bloviated:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:22:01 GMT, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.mercurynews.com/foodheadlines/ci_8311983
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hop and Barley prices have increased dramatically, price for *good*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>beer is going up. Bud-water and Curs unaffected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>good thing i brew my own fermented beverages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the cost is going up, IF you can get the good hops anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can substitute several things for hops with good results, including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>catnip and pot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not to mention all the horrible other things you can wrestle into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>boil-bags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>indeed. hops were not used in beer until rather recently, i believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>between 700 AD and 1,000 AD. before that, they used all kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>stuff, including hot red pepper.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Unless you're referring to red peppecorns (unlikely or at least very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>uncommon, IMO, given the expense), red (chile) peppers cannot have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>used to flavor beer before 1492CE, since they originated from the "New
>>>>>>>>>>>>>World", along with potatoes and tomatoes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>HTH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Didn't, like, the Toltecs or Olmecs or anyone brew beer?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>sure they did.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>everyone brewed beer of some sort.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>although its still somewhat up in the air about whether beer, wine, or
>>>>>>>>>>>mead were first on the human fermentables calendar. the probability
>>>>>>>>>>>is beer or mead, which ferment far faster than wine, but who knows?
>>>>>>>>>>>were talking like 8000 BC or more back in history.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Right, and cereal grains date back only to 5000 BCE and the founding
>>>>>>>>>>of Jericho around the discovery of Emmer wheat, or 3000> BCE and rice
>>>>>>>>>>in the Orient.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Honey is relatively rare (until commercial hay-fields) and incurs
>>>>>>>>>>some difficulty in the harvest, particulary for a people without
>>>>>>>>>>ready (made from scratch) fire. Honey is also self-preserving, and
>>>>>>>>>>will not ferment unless diluted and forced.
>>>>>>>>>>Berries are likely first of that group, are more common than
>>>>>>>>>>fruits, esp. the modern, large-pulp varieties, and several will
>>>>>>>>>>produce all season.
>>>>>>>>>>However one wonders if Adam actually ate apple or got plonked on
>>>>>>>>>>natural cider (cf. Frost's "The Cow in Apple-Time"), hence the
>>>>>>>>>>Injunction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>However, the most-likely "first" is one of the known root-starches.
>>>>>>>>>>The earliest under cultivation were various water-lilies (lotus,
>>>>>>>>>>e.g.) in the Tigris, Nile, Indus, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>What makes it difficult is that written records postdate Jericho,
>>>>>>>>>>and that the materials of undistilled booze are ephemeral and the
>>>>>>>>>>tools common pots, obviating archeological evidence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>making it even harder, one theory has that people travelling around
>>>>>>>>>even pre civilization would make containers out of skins for water.
>>>>>>>>>the theory says that they might even put in fruits or honey for taste,
>>>>>>>>>which of course would have wild yeast on it, and so by seeming magic,
>>>>>>>>>a skin here or there would produce an alcoholic elixer. and of course
>>>>>>>>>that skin would become imbued with yeast such that pretty much any
>>>>>>>>>water/sugar addition would do the trick! and yer just not gonna find
>>>>>>>>>a skin like this in the archeological record.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Perzakly.
>>>>>>>>But the funny thing about statistics is this, that if a thing has
>>>>>>>>only a chance in a billion of happening, it's fuken well gonna happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No no no, that's only if it's
>>>>>
>>>>>exactly
>>>>
>>>>>>>a million to one against.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>(The Adams-Pratchett Axiom of Improbability.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Douglas Adams?
>>>>>> (It's a real axiom, and a lot older than he.)
>>>>>
>>>>>?
>>>>
>>>>Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," "The
>>>>Restaurant at the Edge of the Universe," etc., which makes extreme
>>>>use of various improbabilities and pseudoparadoxes in theoretical
>>>>"physics," incl. "The Improbability Drive."
>>>> All(?) such "theories" exist only in isolation; Adams simply plugs
>>>>them back into mainstream reality and cackles at the "results."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Are you speaking simply of the truism that anything not impossible can
>>>>>happen, no matter how unlikely, or something even grottier?
>>>>
>>>>Approximately; it's merely an "opening lesson" in almost any
>>>>statistics course/book, i.e., that anything that has even a
>>>>vanishingly small probability of happening damwell /will/ eventually
>>>>happen, i.e., that it's inevitable.
>>>> It's a crucial point of subatomic physics, planetology, and
>>>>cosmology often forgotten by the careless and never learned by those
>>>>who would rather be Faithful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I fixed the API Axiom above. Sorry.
>>>>
>>>>The actual principle has no specific coefficient, and I've never
>>>>heard (to remember it) that it had an attribution name.
>>>> One feels that Zeno would have propounded it, but then he missed
>>>>so damned much that was right next to what he knew that it makes one
>>>>leery of using "any," "all," or "none" in any context outside the
>>>>strictly logical.
>>>> It's a big universe, and temporally infinite.
>>>
>>>black holes are just as likely to emit electromagnetic waves as they
>>>are to spit out a 1963 chevy pickup with pink fuzzy dice, so says
>>>hawking.
>>
>>Black Holes are the other side of White Holes are the other side of
>>Black Holes.
>> "Quantity is bounded by itself."
>> I keep forgetting I may be the only one who ever looked for
>>Aristotle's missing Entity Axiom, let alone found it (took four years
>>after I knew what it had to look like), or that the want of it threw
>>Parmenides and Aquinas into infinite regress before it threw Hawking
>>into infinitesimal regress.
>> Hawking recanted "naked singularity" in 1998.
>
>
> The quote above is what you are calling the axiom? it is nice. And vague.


Maybe it too much "only" answers Parmenides' problem of infinite
bounds, but almost every other primary philosopher has had the
problem in small or large, and it's always rendered his fundamental
notion useless.

To say that quanitity is bounded by itself may be /only/ to say that
it is not bounded by something else, but lookit the difference.
All axioms are simple, and usually vague as hell aside their
actual relevance.
Perhaps the first corollary is more interesting: the universe
/has/ no "outside," i.e., there is no such thing as "the
supernatural." Now to do the geometry...

>
> I was so repulsed by Aristotle's fake prediction ("Either there will be a
> sea-battle tomorrow, or not"-- if you "predict" ALL POSSIBLE COURSES,
> you're not predicting at all, even when the total set of "predictions" is
> distributed among several "predictors", which is how "psychics" and
> "economic forecasters" and so on work) and the bit about women having
> fewer teeth than men (there comes a point where theorizing without
> verification becomes reprehensible) that I resent looking into Aristotle
> even for the good stuff . . . .
>
> That applies to Plato, too. In spades.
>

Which, I've "always" been certain, was Aristotle's point.
The /fact/ is that Aristotle went galumphing off with Alexander
/precisely to/ "go look" at the world, to count its teeth.
He's routinely credited as the first philosopher to do that as a
principle.
One result is that he put the "Fifth" (fourth*) Element back into
Anaximander's "Four Elements." It's the Church that threw it back
out so that it could teach you to laugh at the result.

__________
* Water, Air, Earth, Homos, Fire

--
-------(m+
~/)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org

 

mimus wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:08:57 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>
>
>>mimus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Aren't they cutting our beer off, like they did America's soldiers' beer
>>>in the Korean War, due to Christian women's groups objecting?
>>
>>No wonder we didn't win.
>
>
> Naw, that was a political decision, once the Chinese were being rolled
> back up the goddam peninsula (the second time North for many of the
> American/UN troops, after the second time South), to stop at the Parallel,
> instead of pursuing it.
>
> The war had become a slaughterhouse for the Chinese by that point.
>
> They couldn't have done a thing if the UN forces had moved on further
> North to the Yalu again.
>
> Remember, Stalin was supposed to have supplied air-support to the Chinese,
> and backed out.


We'll never know how many Russians flew over the Yalu, just as we'll
never know how many flew over the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
But the /fact/ is that Russ supplied a hell of a lot of MiGs to
both places, and those we /could/ count, and know the support pyramid
for.

>
> Otherwise the Chinese troops with Soviet air-support would've likely swept
> the UN and South Korean forces into the sea off Pusan, or, if they didn't,
> it would've been a damned close-run thing.


Neh, for a change. The only thing the F86-E couldn't do to a MiG-17
was catch the sucker this side of the Yalu if it had a ten-mile head
start. More aces /per capita/ over Korea than in any other war.
And the Navy had ground support pretty well covered with the F4U-5
and F10F-4 and -7, the latter also a MiG-smacker.

>
> Again.


That they did it the first time was a matter of belief: nobody
believed they would try, so nobody had "enough" to stop 'em if they did.
And they had so little on that first push that most of our overrun
elements made it back to our own side through the gaps in less than
two weeks.

>
> ("Not the Naktong again!")
>


--
-------(m+
~/)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org

 

mimus wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:06:04 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>
>
>>mimus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:16:24 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:05:00 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:02:08 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:15:37 -0600, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>>>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:04:48 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:54:59 -0600, TheBookman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:07:23 -0500, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:15:36 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:09:26 +0000, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:24:05 -0500, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bloviated:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:22:01 GMT, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.mercurynews.com/foodheadlines/ci_8311983
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hop and Barley prices have increased dramatically, price for *good*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>beer is going up. Bud-water and Curs unaffected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>good thing i brew my own fermented beverages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the cost is going up, IF you can get the good hops anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can substitute several things for hops with good results, including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>catnip and pot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not to mention all the horrible other things you can wrestle into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>boil-bags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>indeed. hops were not used in beer until rather recently, i believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>between 700 AD and 1,000 AD. before that, they used all kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>stuff, including hot red pepper.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Unless you're referring to red peppecorns (unlikely or at least very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>uncommon, IMO, given the expense), red (chile) peppers cannot have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>used to flavor beer before 1492CE, since they originated from the "New
>>>>>>>>>>>>>World", along with potatoes and tomatoes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>HTH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Didn't, like, the Toltecs or Olmecs or anyone brew beer?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>sure they did.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>everyone brewed beer of some sort.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>although its still somewhat up in the air about whether beer, wine, or
>>>>>>>>>>>mead were first on the human fermentables calendar. the probability
>>>>>>>>>>>is beer or mead, which ferment far faster than wine, but who knows?
>>>>>>>>>>>were talking like 8000 BC or more back in history.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Right, and cereal grains date back only to 5000 BCE and the founding
>>>>>>>>>>of Jericho around the discovery of Emmer wheat, or 3000> BCE and rice
>>>>>>>>>>in the Orient.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Honey is relatively rare (until commercial hay-fields) and incurs
>>>>>>>>>>some difficulty in the harvest, particulary for a people without
>>>>>>>>>>ready (made from scratch) fire. Honey is also self-preserving, and
>>>>>>>>>>will not ferment unless diluted and forced.
>>>>>>>>>>Berries are likely first of that group, are more common than
>>>>>>>>>>fruits, esp. the modern, large-pulp varieties, and several will
>>>>>>>>>>produce all season.
>>>>>>>>>>However one wonders if Adam actually ate apple or got plonked on
>>>>>>>>>>natural cider (cf. Frost's "The Cow in Apple-Time"), hence the
>>>>>>>>>>Injunction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>However, the most-likely "first" is one of the known root-starches.
>>>>>>>>>>The earliest under cultivation were various water-lilies (lotus,
>>>>>>>>>>e.g.) in the Tigris, Nile, Indus, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>What makes it difficult is that written records postdate Jericho,
>>>>>>>>>>and that the materials of undistilled booze are ephemeral and the
>>>>>>>>>>tools common pots, obviating archeological evidence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>making it even harder, one theory has that people travelling around
>>>>>>>>>even pre civilization would make containers out of skins for water.
>>>>>>>>>the theory says that they might even put in fruits or honey for taste,
>>>>>>>>>which of course would have wild yeast on it, and so by seeming magic,
>>>>>>>>>a skin here or there would produce an alcoholic elixer. and of course
>>>>>>>>>that skin would become imbued with yeast such that pretty much any
>>>>>>>>>water/sugar addition would do the trick! and yer just not gonna find
>>>>>>>>>a skin like this in the archeological record.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Perzakly.
>>>>>>>>But the funny thing about statistics is this, that if a thing has
>>>>>>>>only a chance in a billion of happening, it's fuken well gonna happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No no no, that's only if it's
>>>>>
>>>>>exactly
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>a million to one against.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>(The Adams-Pratchett Axiom of Improbability.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Douglas Adams?
>>>>>> (It's a real axiom, and a lot older than he.)
>>>>>
>>>>>?
>>>>
>>>>Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," "The
>>>>Restaurant at the Edge of the Universe," etc., which makes extreme
>>>>use of various improbabilities and pseudoparadoxes in theoretical
>>>>"physics," incl. "The Improbability Drive."
>>>> All(?) such "theories" exist only in isolation; Adams simply plugs
>>>>them back into mainstream reality and cackles at the "results."
>>>
>>>Yes, yes?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Are you speaking simply of the truism that anything not impossible can
>>>>>happen, no matter how unlikely, or something even grottier?
>>>>
>>>>Approximately; it's merely an "opening lesson" in almost any
>>>>statistics course/book, i.e., that anything that has even a
>>>>vanishingly small probability of happening damwell /will/ eventually
>>>>happen, i.e., that it's inevitable.
>>>> It's a crucial point of subatomic physics, planetology, and
>>>>cosmology often forgotten by the careless and never learned by those
>>>>who would rather be Faithful.
>>>
>>>"Crucial"? I'd go with the more likely stuff, meself, like what happens to
>>>a free neutron after about fifteen minutes or at most within an hour or
>>>two (OK, some may never blow).
>>
>>Most of my "somewheres" have the half-life of a neutron at ~ten minutes.
>> And the result is hydrogen.
>>
>>
>>>It's enough to make your hair stand on end.
>>
>>You might could, as you've just jotted me into considering the most
>>probable emission of a White Hole to be a neutron (conservation of
>>charge across the Center Horizon, etc.), which blows fresh hydrogen
>>into the equation (universe) in ten minutes, a.s.
>> It's /hideously/ simpler than electron/positron or
>>proton/antiproton pairs, e.g.; Occam LUUUves you, tnx.
>
>
> The next step after all the little bangs is globular clusters.
>

Perzackly. When they go bang, you get the Population I stuff with
the heavy elements, like us.

>
>> And while squeezing +- pairs most likely results in a pair of
>>gamma rays, there's no theory or evidence that they cross the Center
>>Horizon any more than they do the Event Horizon, whereas squeezing an
>>incompressible egg causes it to be laid, so...
>
>
> Chicken or turtle?
>

Neutron, according to the thesis you just jogged me into.
Consider the incompressibility of a neutron star, and the "known"
"evaporation" of Black Holes, however that theory has them
"evaporating" half a photon pair at a time from the /surface/ (Event
Horizon) only.
It's far more (i.e., immediately) probable that the stuff (i.e.,
as neutrons) is "squeezed out" of the /center/, but this requires
aetheric theory.
No, Michelson did /not/ disprove its existence, only its "drag."
There are four blatant errors in his abstract alone, and three of 'em
wouldn't have been committed by a competent grade-schooler.
He was hired to do what he did so that "There can be no doubt that
the Law is whatever the people want" (Holmes, /The Common Law/, 1881).

Squeeze a neutron hard enough in all dimensions, it goes flat (point,
maybe a "naked singularity," but Hawking said it's an entity and
persists -- the recanted part -- where a point is merely a temporary
coordinate set, not an object).
This increases aetheric pressure, q, by the amount of one neutron.
Aether is perfectly elastic (cf. Michelson-Morley).
That pressure pops out a neutron (White Hole) "somewhere,"
anywhere "space-time" ("aether") isn't being "squeezed," and has
"space" and "time" to oscillate.

>
>>>Not least in its many (and mostly unregarded) implications.
>>
>>Well, there's one more.
>>
>>
>>>>>I fixed the API Axiom above. Sorry.
>>>>
>>>>The actual principle has no specific coefficient, and I've never
>>>>heard (to remember it) that it had an attribution name.
>>>
>>>That's Pratchett's emendation of the Adamsian theory of the greater the
>>>improbability the greater the probability.
>>
>>Hunh. It's one way to put it. Yes.
>
>
> They're really only talking about _extreme_ im/probabilities.
>

Yes; the rest are all around you alla time.
You, e.g.

>
>>>> One feels that Zeno would have propounded it, but then he missed
>>>>so damned much that was right next to what he knew that it makes one
>>>>leery of using "any," "all," or "none" in any context outside the
>>>>strictly logical.
>>>
>>>Considering that the propositional logic was not separated out from set
>>>theory until George Boole's _An Investigation of the Laws of Thought_
>>>(1854), and the mathematics of form not separated out from propositional
>>>logic until George Spencer Brown's _Laws of Form_ (1964), I have a
>>>somewhat jaundiced view of earlier philosophy, not to mention the "Age of
>>>Reason".
>>
>>Aristotle's sets were merely incomplete, but he founded a
>>propositional logic on them that had become a primer litany by the
>>Middle Ages: "Barbara, Celarent, Dorii, Fortieris," each with rules
>>of conversion, inversion, and contraposition.
>> Boole completed the sets far more than the priests could permit,
>>which is why they've been bitching about "golems" ever since (cf.
>>Wiener's Second Edition of /Cybernetics/ (1964) and Crick's recanting
>>of DNA (~1985)).
>
>
> ?
>

DNA + cybernetics = "golems," "robots," yatta, that priests can't
afford to admit. (They're quasi-golems, "vampires.")

>
>> I didn't find any inclusions of the "old logic" into Boolean/Venn
>>notations, or the latter into conjunctions/prepositions, so I did it
>>myself.
>
>
> See Appendix 2 of _Laws of Form_ for the propositional logical foundation
> of set reasoning . . . .
>

It all depends on the word "belongs," eh?
And since everything "belongs" to the priests, there is no other
classification and no such thing as logic.
There is only Received Doctrine.

>
>>>The Greeks in particular along with their many splendid achievements
>>>made many philosophical howlers as well, as could only be expected (I
>>>accept and sympathize with "first gropings" as a rational plea in
>>>mitigation of such things as the "spiritual hypothesis", although that
>>>plea withers with time), and moving on to more complex matters one can
>>>only hope that Plato's _Republic_ was a joke, a satire on Sparta and/or
>>>Utopia-building, although one fears not.
>>
>>It wasn't, sri. He /knew/ who buttered his bread in return for saying
>>they "ruled."
>
>
> I've always enjoyed the widespread respect-- as evidenced by the very
> adoption of the title to be representative-- accorded Thomas More's
> _Utopia_, under which only Christians could be citizens, Jews second-class
> citizens, Moslems slaves, and atheists robbed or murdered with legal
> impunity:
>
> It says so much about More and Christianity and "Western Culture" over the
> last several centuries.
>

It seZ even More than that, eh?

>
>> "Once the State has been established, there is no further need for
>>philosophers."
>
>
> A republic of philosophers, as democratic as possible without completely
> paralyzing emergency executive action (needing upheld quickly by
> oversight), is the only State; all else is slavery.


But that's precisely what's defined by our Constitution.
Why Democrats (who own you) and Republicans (whose servants own
you) so hate the Constitution. Fortunately, they comprise only 48%
of the people in a good (for them) year when put together in a bunch,
and they cry about it after every "election," because every "vote" in
/my/ country is counted every ten years.

The U.S. is legally a Federation of sovereigns (not "sovereign"
"States" -- it seZ "We, the People," not "We, the States") commonly
called an aristocracy.
"Civil" servants have abdicated their sovereign minority to
address you as "yes, sir," not "do this or I'll shoot you, sir."

>
> I believe we were discussing extreme improbabilities?


You mean like a rational population?
Or a civil Civil Servant who actually serves?

>
> I'd start with requiring a passing grade in logic to graduate from high
> school, and find it peculiar, very peculiar, almost astonishing, that all
> the various schemes of "educational reform" in the United States,
> propounded by practically everyone involved except the students
> themselves, never ever mention that.


That's because every educational "reform" ever imposed at gunpoint
(i.e., all of them) was proposed by people who claim to own everybody
they think they've heard of, beginning with your kids.
And any exercise of logic would have the bastards dead of their
own propositions.
(They're still alive only because they aren't worth a good weapons
cleaning, but they're poisoning our kids against human being by
poisoning them against human language. Words /are/ mind-altering
chemicals.)

>
> An "education" without logic is hardly the education of a citizen; it
> seems more like an indoctrination of slaves.
>

Called by the Romans the "proletariat," "those bred to the service of
the State."

>
>> Why Republics chew themselves out of raw material while drowning
>>in their own shit and market gluts.
>
>
> Kingdoms and theocracies and plutocracies don't?


Republics all.
And the worst of 'em is the "Democratic" or "People's" Republic,
as "there can be no doubt that the Law is whatever the people want."
Which, in one generation, is "There can be no doubt that the Law
is whatever the Baby Wants."
Q.v.

>
>> The only animal besides sheep to need shepherds, and for the same
>>reason (not "wolves," but eating holes in their pastures).
>
>
> Where do the shepherds come from, and how are they selected, and by whom?
>

The usual. The shepherds own the sheep, see...

>
>> Credit Cards eat holes out the other side of their pastures,
>>proving to them that they have not eaten holes in their pastures.
>> White Holes On Credit, heh.
>> (Sri, they're still Black Holes.)
>>
>>
>>>> It's a big universe, and temporally infinite.
>>>
>>>Maybe we're just infinitesimal.
>>
>>Close. (But no cigar.)
>> Unlike the sun, we go out every night.
>
>
> Um. We really don't. Proof: Look who wakes up there every morning.


You mean those who go out every night wake up in the alley behind the
bar?

>
> For good or ill is another question.
>

Being Earth, the meat abides.
When it wakes up, what wakes is what went to sleep.
Mickey's Little Hand is a fuken liar.
It kept galumphing on at a uniform rate.
You didn't.

>
>> And we're so taken with the fact that the soul that wakes up in
>>the morning is the same one that went to bed, that we have no use for
>>the fact that the one that goes to bed is not the same one that woke up.
>>
>>Class B waves /cease to exist/ every half cycle. That line between
>>the lumps is not a "signal" or "signal record," but a record of the
>>fact that the recording pen has not ceased to exist along with the
>>signal.
>> Mickey's Little Hand is a fuken liar.
>
>


--
-------(m+
~/)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org

 

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:42:35 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:

> mimus wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 05:32:56 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:16:24 -0600, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:05:00 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:02:08 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:15:37 -0600, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>>>>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:04:48 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:54:59 -0600, TheBookman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:07:23 -0500, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:15:36 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:09:26 +0000, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:24:05 -0500, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bloviated:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:22:01 GMT, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.mercurynews.com/foodheadlines/ci_8311983
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hop and Barley prices have increased dramatically, price for *good*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>beer is going up. Bud-water and Curs unaffected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>good thing i brew my own fermented beverages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the cost is going up, IF you can get the good hops anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can substitute several things for hops with good results, including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>catnip and pot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not to mention all the horrible other things you can wrestle into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>boil-bags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>indeed. hops were not used in beer until rather recently, i believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>between 700 AD and 1,000 AD. before that, they used all kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>stuff, including hot red pepper.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Unless you're referring to red peppecorns (unlikely or at least very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>uncommon, IMO, given the expense), red (chile) peppers cannot have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>used to flavor beer before 1492CE, since they originated from the "New
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>World", along with potatoes and tomatoes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>HTH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Didn't, like, the Toltecs or Olmecs or anyone brew beer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>sure they did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>everyone brewed beer of some sort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>although its still somewhat up in the air about whether beer, wine, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>mead were first on the human fermentables calendar. the probability
>>>>>>>>>>>>is beer or mead, which ferment far faster than wine, but who knows?
>>>>>>>>>>>>were talking like 8000 BC or more back in history.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Right, and cereal grains date back only to 5000 BCE and the founding
>>>>>>>>>>>of Jericho around the discovery of Emmer wheat, or 3000> BCE and rice
>>>>>>>>>>>in the Orient.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Honey is relatively rare (until commercial hay-fields) and incurs
>>>>>>>>>>>some difficulty in the harvest, particulary for a people without
>>>>>>>>>>>ready (made from scratch) fire. Honey is also self-preserving, and
>>>>>>>>>>>will not ferment unless diluted and forced.
>>>>>>>>>>>Berries are likely first of that group, are more common than
>>>>>>>>>>>fruits, esp. the modern, large-pulp varieties, and several will
>>>>>>>>>>>produce all season.
>>>>>>>>>>>However one wonders if Adam actually ate apple or got plonked on
>>>>>>>>>>>natural cider (cf. Frost's "The Cow in Apple-Time"), hence the
>>>>>>>>>>>Injunction.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>However, the most-likely "first" is one of the known root-starches.
>>>>>>>>>>>The earliest under cultivation were various water-lilies (lotus,
>>>>>>>>>>>e.g.) in the Tigris, Nile, Indus, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>What makes it difficult is that written records postdate Jericho,
>>>>>>>>>>>and that the materials of undistilled booze are ephemeral and the
>>>>>>>>>>>tools common pots, obviating archeological evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>making it even harder, one theory has that people travelling around
>>>>>>>>>>even pre civilization would make containers out of skins for water.
>>>>>>>>>>the theory says that they might even put in fruits or honey for taste,
>>>>>>>>>>which of course would have wild yeast on it, and so by seeming magic,
>>>>>>>>>>a skin here or there would produce an alcoholic elixer. and of course
>>>>>>>>>>that skin would become imbued with yeast such that pretty much any
>>>>>>>>>>water/sugar addition would do the trick! and yer just not gonna find
>>>>>>>>>>a skin like this in the archeological record.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Perzakly.
>>>>>>>>>But the funny thing about statistics is this, that if a thing has
>>>>>>>>>only a chance in a billion of happening, it's fuken well gonna happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No no no, that's only if it's
>>>>>>
>>>>>>exactly
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>a million to one against.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>(The Adams-Pratchett Axiom of Improbability.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Douglas Adams?
>>>>>>> (It's a real axiom, and a lot older than he.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>?
>>>>>
>>>>>Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," "The
>>>>>Restaurant at the Edge of the Universe," etc., which makes extreme
>>>>>use of various improbabilities and pseudoparadoxes in theoretical
>>>>>"physics," incl. "The Improbability Drive."
>>>>> All(?) such "theories" exist only in isolation; Adams simply plugs
>>>>>them back into mainstream reality and cackles at the "results."
>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you speaking simply of the truism that anything not impossible can
>>>>>>happen, no matter how unlikely, or something even grottier?
>>>>>
>>>>>Approximately; it's merely an "opening lesson" in almost any
>>>>>statistics course/book, i.e., that anything that has even a
>>>>>vanishingly small probability of happening damwell /will/ eventually
>>>>>happen, i.e., that it's inevitable.
>>>>> It's a crucial point of subatomic physics, planetology, and
>>>>>cosmology often forgotten by the careless and never learned by those
>>>>>who would rather be Faithful.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I fixed the API Axiom above. Sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>>The actual principle has no specific coefficient, and I've never
>>>>>heard (to remember it) that it had an attribution name.
>>>>> One feels that Zeno would have propounded it, but then he missed
>>>>>so damned much that was right next to what he knew that it makes one
>>>>>leery of using "any," "all," or "none" in any context outside the
>>>>>strictly logical.
>>>>> It's a big universe, and temporally infinite.
>>>>
>>>>black holes are just as likely to emit electromagnetic waves as they
>>>>are to spit out a 1963 chevy pickup with pink fuzzy dice, so says
>>>>hawking.
>>>
>>>Black Holes are the other side of White Holes are the other side of
>>>Black Holes.
>>> "Quantity is bounded by itself."
>>> I keep forgetting I may be the only one who ever looked for
>>>Aristotle's missing Entity Axiom, let alone found it (took four years
>>>after I knew what it had to look like), or that the want of it threw
>>>Parmenides and Aquinas into infinite regress before it threw Hawking
>>>into infinitesimal regress.
>>> Hawking recanted "naked singularity" in 1998.
>>
>> The quote above is what you are calling the axiom? it is nice. And vague.
>
> Maybe it too much "only" answers Parmenides' problem of infinite
> bounds, but almost every other primary philosopher has had the
> problem in small or large, and it's always rendered his fundamental
> notion useless.
>
> To say that quanitity is bounded by itself may be /only/ to say that
> it is not bounded by something else, but lookit the difference.
> All axioms are simple, and usually vague as hell aside their
> actual relevance.

What about "The entity is the one that owns the surface/interface" ("The
other one is the space")?

This is no worse than, say, le Chatelier's Principle, which is a very
interesting one, leading on into considerations of dissipative process,
leading on into considerations of cosmogenesis and biogenesis . . . .

> Perhaps the first corollary is more interesting: the universe
> /has/ no "outside," i.e., there is no such thing as "the
> supernatural." Now to do the geometry...
>
>> I was so repulsed by Aristotle's fake prediction ("Either there will be a
>> sea-battle tomorrow, or not"-- if you "predict" ALL POSSIBLE COURSES,
>> you're not predicting at all, even when the total set of "predictions" is
>> distributed among several "predictors", which is how "psychics" and
>> "economic forecasters" and so on work) and the bit about women having
>> fewer teeth than men (there comes a point where theorizing without
>> verification becomes reprehensible) that I resent looking into Aristotle
>> even for the good stuff . . . .
>>
>> That applies to Plato, too. In spades.
>
> Which, I've "always" been certain, was Aristotle's point.
> The /fact/ is that Aristotle went galumphing off with Alexander
> /precisely to/ "go look" at the world, to count its teeth.

He didn't count the boys' and girls' teeth very well . . . .

And I don't think Plato made it out of the study or dinner-room much.

> He's routinely credited as the first philosopher to do that as a
> principle.
> One result is that he put the "Fifth" (fourth*) Element back into
> Anaximander's "Four Elements." It's the Church that threw it back
> out so that it could teach you to laugh at the result.
>
> __________
> * Water, Air, Earth, Homos, Fire

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

Whatever are we to do to show the
true harmony and peace that rule here,
somewhat disguised at the moment by
the apparent disorder now seemingly in
progress?

< Laumer

 

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:18:43 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:

> mimus wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:08:57 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>
>>>mimus wrote:
>>>
>>>>Aren't they cutting our beer off, like they did America's soldiers' beer
>>>>in the Korean War, due to Christian women's groups objecting?
>>>
>>>No wonder we didn't win.
>>
>> Naw, that was a political decision, once the Chinese were being rolled
>> back up the goddam peninsula (the second time North for many of the
>> American/UN troops, after the second time South), to stop at the Parallel,
>> instead of pursuing it.
>>
>> The war had become a slaughterhouse for the Chinese by that point.
>>
>> They couldn't have done a thing if the UN forces had moved on further
>> North to the Yalu again.
>>
>> Remember, Stalin was supposed to have supplied air-support to the Chinese,
>> and backed out.
>
> We'll never know how many Russians flew over the Yalu, just as we'll
> never know how many flew over the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
> But the /fact/ is that Russ supplied a hell of a lot of MiGs to
> both places, and those we /could/ count, and know the support pyramid
> for.

But not an actual air-fleet. The air-fleet. Whichever one it was
that was sitting right on the Northeast border of North Korea.

And kept sitting.

>> Otherwise the Chinese troops with Soviet air-support would've likely
>> swept the UN and South Korean forces into the sea off Pusan, or, if
>> they didn't, it would've been a damned close-run thing.
>
> Neh, for a change. The only thing the F86-E couldn't do to a MiG-17 was
> catch the sucker this side of the Yalu if it had a ten-mile head start.
> More aces /per capita/ over Korea than in any other war.
> And the Navy had ground support pretty well covered with the F4U-5
> and F10F-4 and -7, the latter also a MiG-smacker.

I point to the significant fact that the Chinese _without_ Soviet
air-support rolled the guys all the way South from the Yalu clear past
Seoul again . . . .

>> Again.
>
> That they did it the first time was a matter of belief: nobody believed
> they would try, so nobody had "enough" to stop 'em if they did.

Not to mention that all Army regiments had been dropped from three to two
battalions as an economy measure by Truman, and those usually not filled,
and that the regiments used in the first month of the fighting by the US
were from the occupation force in Japan, which weren't remotely
combat-capable (Truman called them "those poor bastards").

The Marines had been so diminished by economy measures that it took a
month to put together a "Provisional Regiment" and get it to Korea.

All the ingredients that go into making up a good debacle, diminished
force, greater responsibilities, and strategic surprise.

That first month was kind of depressing.

> And they had so little on that first push that most of our overrun
> elements made it back to our own side through the gaps in less than two
> weeks.

Well, it wasn't a matter of lines, due to mountains and things canalizing
major mechanized movements both forward and backward along valleys and
passes . . . .

So the fragments that had to hoof it simply wandered South or Southeast
over the hills and far away until they found a "tied-in" US or ROK unit
(waved at a jeep going by or something).

One GI from the first American fight, the one at Osan, ended up going
_West_ to the coast and ended up hitching a ride on a sampan around the
coast to Pusan.

>> ("Not the Naktong again!")

Indeed.

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

I AM JUST WEST OF THE MANURE PILE

< First known US military "wireless" communication

 

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:51:00 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:

> mimus wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:06:04 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>
>>>mimus wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:16:24 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:05:00 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:02:08 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:15:37 -0600, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>>>>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:04:48 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:54:59 -0600, TheBookman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:07:23 -0500, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:15:36 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:09:26 +0000, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:24:05 -0500, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bloviated:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:22:01 GMT, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.mercurynews.com/foodheadlines/ci_8311983
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hop and Barley prices have increased dramatically, price for *good*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>beer is going up. Bud-water and Curs unaffected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>good thing i brew my own fermented beverages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the cost is going up, IF you can get the good hops anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can substitute several things for hops with good results, including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>catnip and pot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not to mention all the horrible other things you can wrestle into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>boil-bags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>indeed. hops were not used in beer until rather recently, i believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>between 700 AD and 1,000 AD. before that, they used all kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>stuff, including hot red pepper.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Unless you're referring to red peppecorns (unlikely or at least very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>uncommon, IMO, given the expense), red (chile) peppers cannot have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>used to flavor beer before 1492CE, since they originated from the "New
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>World", along with potatoes and tomatoes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>HTH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Didn't, like, the Toltecs or Olmecs or anyone brew beer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>sure they did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>everyone brewed beer of some sort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>although its still somewhat up in the air about whether beer, wine, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>mead were first on the human fermentables calendar. the probability
>>>>>>>>>>>>is beer or mead, which ferment far faster than wine, but who knows?
>>>>>>>>>>>>were talking like 8000 BC or more back in history.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Right, and cereal grains date back only to 5000 BCE and the founding
>>>>>>>>>>>of Jericho around the discovery of Emmer wheat, or 3000> BCE and rice
>>>>>>>>>>>in the Orient.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Honey is relatively rare (until commercial hay-fields) and incurs
>>>>>>>>>>>some difficulty in the harvest, particulary for a people without
>>>>>>>>>>>ready (made from scratch) fire. Honey is also self-preserving, and
>>>>>>>>>>>will not ferment unless diluted and forced.
>>>>>>>>>>>Berries are likely first of that group, are more common than
>>>>>>>>>>>fruits, esp. the modern, large-pulp varieties, and several will
>>>>>>>>>>>produce all season.
>>>>>>>>>>>However one wonders if Adam actually ate apple or got plonked on
>>>>>>>>>>>natural cider (cf. Frost's "The Cow in Apple-Time"), hence the
>>>>>>>>>>>Injunction.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>However, the most-likely "first" is one of the known root-starches.
>>>>>>>>>>>The earliest under cultivation were various water-lilies (lotus,
>>>>>>>>>>>e.g.) in the Tigris, Nile, Indus, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>What makes it difficult is that written records postdate Jericho,
>>>>>>>>>>>and that the materials of undistilled booze are ephemeral and the
>>>>>>>>>>>tools common pots, obviating archeological evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>making it even harder, one theory has that people travelling around
>>>>>>>>>>even pre civilization would make containers out of skins for water.
>>>>>>>>>>the theory says that they might even put in fruits or honey for taste,
>>>>>>>>>>which of course would have wild yeast on it, and so by seeming magic,
>>>>>>>>>>a skin here or there would produce an alcoholic elixer. and of course
>>>>>>>>>>that skin would become imbued with yeast such that pretty much any
>>>>>>>>>>water/sugar addition would do the trick! and yer just not gonna find
>>>>>>>>>>a skin like this in the archeological record.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Perzakly.
>>>>>>>>>But the funny thing about statistics is this, that if a thing has
>>>>>>>>>only a chance in a billion of happening, it's fuken well gonna happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No no no, that's only if it's
>>>>>>
>>>>>>exactly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>a million to one against.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>(The Adams-Pratchett Axiom of Improbability.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Douglas Adams?
>>>>>>> (It's a real axiom, and a lot older than he.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>?
>>>>>
>>>>>Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," "The
>>>>>Restaurant at the Edge of the Universe," etc., which makes extreme
>>>>>use of various improbabilities and pseudoparadoxes in theoretical
>>>>>"physics," incl. "The Improbability Drive."
>>>>> All(?) such "theories" exist only in isolation; Adams simply plugs
>>>>>them back into mainstream reality and cackles at the "results."
>>>>
>>>>Yes, yes?
>>>>
>>>>>>Are you speaking simply of the truism that anything not impossible can
>>>>>>happen, no matter how unlikely, or something even grottier?
>>>>>
>>>>>Approximately; it's merely an "opening lesson" in almost any
>>>>>statistics course/book, i.e., that anything that has even a
>>>>>vanishingly small probability of happening damwell /will/ eventually
>>>>>happen, i.e., that it's inevitable.
>>>>> It's a crucial point of subatomic physics, planetology, and
>>>>>cosmology often forgotten by the careless and never learned by those
>>>>>who would rather be Faithful.
>>>>
>>>>"Crucial"? I'd go with the more likely stuff, meself, like what happens to
>>>>a free neutron after about fifteen minutes or at most within an hour or
>>>>two (OK, some may never blow).
>>>
>>>Most of my "somewheres" have the half-life of a neutron at ~ten minutes.
>>> And the result is hydrogen.
>>>
>>>>It's enough to make your hair stand on end.
>>>
>>>You might could, as you've just jotted me into considering the most
>>>probable emission of a White Hole to be a neutron (conservation of
>>>charge across the Center Horizon, etc.), which blows fresh hydrogen
>>>into the equation (universe) in ten minutes, a.s.
>>> It's /hideously/ simpler than electron/positron or
>>>proton/antiproton pairs, e.g.; Occam LUUUves you, tnx.
>>
>> The next step after all the little bangs is globular clusters.
>
> Perzackly. When they go bang, you get the Population I stuff with
> the heavy elements, like us.

All iron is old iron. Very very old iron.

>>> And while squeezing +- pairs most likely results in a pair of
>>>gamma rays, there's no theory or evidence that they cross the Center
>>>Horizon any more than they do the Event Horizon, whereas squeezing an
>>>incompressible egg causes it to be laid, so...
>>
>> Chicken or turtle?
>
> Neutron, according to the thesis you just jogged me into.
> Consider the incompressibility of a neutron star, and the "known"
> "evaporation" of Black Holes, however that theory has them
> "evaporating" half a photon pair at a time from the /surface/ (Event
> Horizon) only.
> It's far more (i.e., immediately) probable that the stuff (i.e.,
> as neutrons) is "squeezed out" of the /center/, but this requires
> aetheric theory.
> No, Michelson did /not/ disprove its existence, only its "drag."
> There are four blatant errors in his abstract alone, and three of 'em
> wouldn't have been committed by a competent grade-schooler.
> He was hired to do what he did so that "There can be no doubt that
> the Law is whatever the people want" (Holmes, /The Common Law/, 1881).
>
> Squeeze a neutron hard enough in all dimensions, it goes flat (point,
> maybe a "naked singularity," but Hawking said it's an entity and
> persists -- the recanted part -- where a point is merely a temporary
> coordinate set, not an object).
> This increases aetheric pressure, q, by the amount of one neutron.
> Aether is perfectly elastic (cf. Michelson-Morley).
> That pressure pops out a neutron (White Hole) "somewhere,"
> anywhere "space-time" ("aether") isn't being "squeezed," and has
> "space" and "time" to oscillate.
>
>>>>Not least in its many (and mostly unregarded) implications.
>>>
>>>Well, there's one more.
>>>
>>>>>>I fixed the API Axiom above. Sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>>The actual principle has no specific coefficient, and I've never
>>>>>heard (to remember it) that it had an attribution name.
>>>>
>>>>That's Pratchett's emendation of the Adamsian theory of the greater the
>>>>improbability the greater the probability.
>>>
>>>Hunh. It's one way to put it. Yes.
>>
>> They're really only talking about _extreme_ im/probabilities.
>
> Yes; the rest are all around you alla time.
> You, e.g.
>
>>>>> One feels that Zeno would have propounded it, but then he missed
>>>>>so damned much that was right next to what he knew that it makes one
>>>>>leery of using "any," "all," or "none" in any context outside the
>>>>>strictly logical.
>>>>
>>>>Considering that the propositional logic was not separated out from set
>>>>theory until George Boole's _An Investigation of the Laws of Thought_
>>>>(1854), and the mathematics of form not separated out from propositional
>>>>logic until George Spencer Brown's _Laws of Form_ (1964), I have a
>>>>somewhat jaundiced view of earlier philosophy, not to mention the "Age of
>>>>Reason".
>>>
>>>Aristotle's sets were merely incomplete, but he founded a
>>>propositional logic on them that had become a primer litany by the
>>>Middle Ages: "Barbara, Celarent, Dorii, Fortieris," each with rules
>>>of conversion, inversion, and contraposition.
>>> Boole completed the sets far more than the priests could permit,
>>>which is why they've been bitching about "golems" ever since (cf.
>>>Wiener's Second Edition of /Cybernetics/ (1964) and Crick's recanting
>>>of DNA (~1985)).
>>
>> ?
>
> DNA + cybernetics = "golems," "robots," yatta, that priests can't
> afford to admit. (They're quasi-golems, "vampires.")

I was actually questioning the "recanting".

>>> I didn't find any inclusions of the "old logic" into Boolean/Venn
>>>notations, or the latter into conjunctions/prepositions, so I did it
>>>myself.
>>
>> See Appendix 2 of _Laws of Form_ for the propositional logical foundation
>> of set reasoning . . . .
>
> It all depends on the word "belongs," eh?
> And since everything "belongs" to the priests, there is no other
> classification and no such thing as logic.
> There is only Received Doctrine.
>
>>>>The Greeks in particular along with their many splendid achievements
>>>>made many philosophical howlers as well, as could only be expected (I
>>>>accept and sympathize with "first gropings" as a rational plea in
>>>>mitigation of such things as the "spiritual hypothesis", although that
>>>>plea withers with time), and moving on to more complex matters one can
>>>>only hope that Plato's _Republic_ was a joke, a satire on Sparta and/or
>>>>Utopia-building, although one fears not.
>>>
>>>It wasn't, sri. He /knew/ who buttered his bread in return for saying
>>>they "ruled."
>>
>> I've always enjoyed the widespread respect-- as evidenced by the very
>> adoption of the title to be representative-- accorded Thomas More's
>> _Utopia_, under which only Christians could be citizens, Jews second-class
>> citizens, Moslems slaves, and atheists robbed or murdered with legal
>> impunity:
>>
>> It says so much about More and Christianity and "Western Culture" over the
>> last several centuries.
>
> It seZ even More than that, eh?
>
>>> "Once the State has been established, there is no further need for
>>>philosophers."
>>
>> A republic of philosophers, as democratic as possible without completely
>> paralyzing emergency executive action (needing upheld quickly by
>> oversight), is the only State; all else is slavery.
>
> But that's precisely what's defined by our Constitution.

No, there's no logic-test for being a voter or juror.

Not even an elementary one.

> Why Democrats (who own you) and Republicans (whose servants own
> you) so hate the Constitution. Fortunately, they comprise only 48%
> of the people in a good (for them) year when put together in a bunch,
> and they cry about it after every "election," because every "vote" in
> /my/ country is counted every ten years.
>
> The U.S. is legally a Federation of sovereigns (not "sovereign"
> "States" -- it seZ "We, the People," not "We, the States") commonly
> called an aristocracy.
> "Civil" servants have abdicated their sovereign minority to
> address you as "yes, sir," not "do this or I'll shoot you, sir."
>
>> I believe we were discussing extreme improbabilities?
>
> You mean like a rational population?
> Or a civil Civil Servant who actually serves?

Something like Option A.

>> I'd start with requiring a passing grade in logic to graduate from high
>> school, and find it peculiar, very peculiar, almost astonishing, that
>> all the various schemes of "educational reform" in the United States,
>> propounded by practically everyone involved except the students
>> themselves, never ever mention that.
>
> That's because every educational "reform" ever imposed at gunpoint
> (i.e., all of them) was proposed by people who claim to own everybody
> they think they've heard of, beginning with your kids.
> And any exercise of logic would have the bastards dead of their
> own propositions.
> (They're still alive only because they aren't worth a good weapons
> cleaning, but they're poisoning our kids against human being by
> poisoning them against human language. Words /are/ mind-altering
> chemicals.)
>
>> An "education" without logic is hardly the education of a citizen; it
>> seems more like an indoctrination of slaves.
>>
> Called by the Romans the "proletariat," "those bred to the service of
> the State."

Or, more concisely and accurately, "breeders".

>>> Why Republics chew themselves out of raw material while drowning
>>>in their own shit and market gluts.
>>
>> Kingdoms and theocracies and plutocracies don't?
>
> Republics all.
> And the worst of 'em is the "Democratic" or "People's" Republic,
> as "there can be no doubt that the Law is whatever the people want."
> Which, in one generation, is "There can be no doubt that the Law
> is whatever the Baby Wants."
> Q.v.
>
>>> The only animal besides sheep to need shepherds, and for the same
>>>reason (not "wolves," but eating holes in their pastures).
>>
>> Where do the shepherds come from, and how are they selected, and by
>> whom?
>>
> The usual. The shepherds own the sheep, see...

"Bleating and babbling we fell on their necks with a screeeeeaaaaammmmmm
.. . . . "

>>> Credit Cards eat holes out the other side of their pastures,
>>>proving to them that they have not eaten holes in their pastures.
>>> White Holes On Credit, heh.
>>> (Sri, they're still Black Holes.)
>>>
>>>>> It's a big universe, and temporally infinite.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe we're just infinitesimal.
>>>
>>>Close. (But no cigar.)
>>> Unlike the sun, we go out every night.
>>
>> Um. We really don't. Proof: Look who wakes up there every morning.
>
> You mean those who go out every night wake up in the alley behind the
> bar?

Well, how often does someone wake up and find they're in the wrong bed and
with the wrong face in the mirror?

>> For good or ill is another question.
>
> Being Earth, the meat abides.
> When it wakes up, what wakes is what went to sleep. Mickey's Little
> Hand is a fuken liar. It kept galumphing on at a uniform rate. You
> didn't.
>
>>> And we're so taken with the fact that the soul that wakes up in
>>>the morning is the same one that went to bed, that we have no use for
>>>the fact that the one that goes to bed is not the same one that woke
>>>up.
>>>
>>>Class B waves /cease to exist/ every half cycle. That line between the
>>>lumps is not a "signal" or "signal record," but a record of the fact
>>>that the recording pen has not ceased to exist along with the signal.
>>> Mickey's Little Hand is a fuken liar.

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

I wonder what I have been up to.

< _Beyond Apollo_

 

mimus wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:42:35 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>
>
>>mimus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 05:32:56 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:16:24 -0600, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:05:00 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:02:08 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:15:37 -0600, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>>>>>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:04:48 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:54:59 -0600, TheBookman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:07:23 -0500, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:15:36 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:09:26 +0000, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:24:05 -0500, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bloviated:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:22:01 GMT, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.mercurynews.com/foodheadlines/ci_8311983
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hop and Barley prices have increased dramatically, price for *good*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>beer is going up. Bud-water and Curs unaffected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>good thing i brew my own fermented beverages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the cost is going up, IF you can get the good hops anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can substitute several things for hops with good results, including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>catnip and pot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not to mention all the horrible other things you can wrestle into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>boil-bags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>indeed. hops were not used in beer until rather recently, i believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>between 700 AD and 1,000 AD. before that, they used all kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>stuff, including hot red pepper.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Unless you're referring to red peppecorns (unlikely or at least very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>uncommon, IMO, given the expense), red (chile) peppers cannot have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>used to flavor beer before 1492CE, since they originated from the "New
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>World", along with potatoes and tomatoes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>HTH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Didn't, like, the Toltecs or Olmecs or anyone brew beer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>sure they did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>everyone brewed beer of some sort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>although its still somewhat up in the air about whether beer, wine, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>mead were first on the human fermentables calendar. the probability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>is beer or mead, which ferment far faster than wine, but who knows?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>were talking like 8000 BC or more back in history.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Right, and cereal grains date back only to 5000 BCE and the founding
>>>>>>>>>>>>of Jericho around the discovery of Emmer wheat, or 3000> BCE and rice
>>>>>>>>>>>>in the Orient.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Honey is relatively rare (until commercial hay-fields) and incurs
>>>>>>>>>>>>some difficulty in the harvest, particulary for a people without
>>>>>>>>>>>>ready (made from scratch) fire. Honey is also self-preserving, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>will not ferment unless diluted and forced.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Berries are likely first of that group, are more common than
>>>>>>>>>>>>fruits, esp. the modern, large-pulp varieties, and several will
>>>>>>>>>>>>produce all season.
>>>>>>>>>>>>However one wonders if Adam actually ate apple or got plonked on
>>>>>>>>>>>>natural cider (cf. Frost's "The Cow in Apple-Time"), hence the
>>>>>>>>>>>>Injunction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>However, the most-likely "first" is one of the known root-starches.
>>>>>>>>>>>>The earliest under cultivation were various water-lilies (lotus,
>>>>>>>>>>>>e.g.) in the Tigris, Nile, Indus, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>What makes it difficult is that written records postdate Jericho,
>>>>>>>>>>>>and that the materials of undistilled booze are ephemeral and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>tools common pots, obviating archeological evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>making it even harder, one theory has that people travelling around
>>>>>>>>>>>even pre civilization would make containers out of skins for water.
>>>>>>>>>>>the theory says that they might even put in fruits or honey for taste,
>>>>>>>>>>>which of course would have wild yeast on it, and so by seeming magic,
>>>>>>>>>>>a skin here or there would produce an alcoholic elixer. and of course
>>>>>>>>>>>that skin would become imbued with yeast such that pretty much any
>>>>>>>>>>>water/sugar addition would do the trick! and yer just not gonna find
>>>>>>>>>>>a skin like this in the archeological record.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Perzakly.
>>>>>>>>>>But the funny thing about statistics is this, that if a thing has
>>>>>>>>>>only a chance in a billion of happening, it's fuken well gonna happen.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No no no, that's only if it's
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>exactly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>a million to one against.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>(The Adams-Pratchett Axiom of Improbability.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Douglas Adams?
>>>>>>>>(It's a real axiom, and a lot older than he.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," "The
>>>>>>Restaurant at the Edge of the Universe," etc., which makes extreme
>>>>>>use of various improbabilities and pseudoparadoxes in theoretical
>>>>>>"physics," incl. "The Improbability Drive."
>>>>>>All(?) such "theories" exist only in isolation; Adams simply plugs
>>>>>>them back into mainstream reality and cackles at the "results."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Are you speaking simply of the truism that anything not impossible can
>>>>>>>happen, no matter how unlikely, or something even grottier?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Approximately; it's merely an "opening lesson" in almost any
>>>>>>statistics course/book, i.e., that anything that has even a
>>>>>>vanishingly small probability of happening damwell /will/ eventually
>>>>>>happen, i.e., that it's inevitable.
>>>>>>It's a crucial point of subatomic physics, planetology, and
>>>>>>cosmology often forgotten by the careless and never learned by those
>>>>>>who would rather be Faithful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I fixed the API Axiom above. Sorry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The actual principle has no specific coefficient, and I've never
>>>>>>heard (to remember it) that it had an attribution name.
>>>>>>One feels that Zeno would have propounded it, but then he missed
>>>>>>so damned much that was right next to what he knew that it makes one
>>>>>>leery of using "any," "all," or "none" in any context outside the
>>>>>>strictly logical.
>>>>>>It's a big universe, and temporally infinite.
>>>>>
>>>>>black holes are just as likely to emit electromagnetic waves as they
>>>>>are to spit out a 1963 chevy pickup with pink fuzzy dice, so says
>>>>>hawking.
>>>>
>>>>Black Holes are the other side of White Holes are the other side of
>>>>Black Holes.
>>>> "Quantity is bounded by itself."
>>>> I keep forgetting I may be the only one who ever looked for
>>>>Aristotle's missing Entity Axiom, let alone found it (took four years
>>>>after I knew what it had to look like), or that the want of it threw
>>>>Parmenides and Aquinas into infinite regress before it threw Hawking
>>>>into infinitesimal regress.
>>>> Hawking recanted "naked singularity" in 1998.
>>>
>>>The quote above is what you are calling the axiom? it is nice. And vague.
>>
>>Maybe it too much "only" answers Parmenides' problem of infinite
>>bounds, but almost every other primary philosopher has had the
>>problem in small or large, and it's always rendered his fundamental
>>notion useless.
>>
>>To say that quanitity is bounded by itself may be /only/ to say that
>>it is not bounded by something else, but lookit the difference.
>> All axioms are simple, and usually vague as hell aside their
>>actual relevance.
>
>
> What about "The entity is the one that owns the surface/interface" ("The
> other one is the space")?


Oddly enough, that applies to "Bubbles" (language, the
wholly-structural result of Water + Air [+ Earth, the counting of the
teeth], each of which have no structure) and their genesis of
"demons" (dragons, gerrymanders) as the (shape of a) space bounded by
parts (Bubbles) of real thoughts (the "entities" of the distinction
immediately above).
That distinction /presumes/ a bounding "space"; the Entity Axiom
does not, does not require one, and in several particulars does not
admit to one.
Indeed, in the distinction above, the demon (virtual object,
shape) is the "bounding space."

P.S.: The five Elements (cardinal dimensions) are wholly internal
(subjective, reproducible), not constitutents of "the (observed)
universe" but of the universe of discourse, the observer.
That every observer produces them with every observation generates
a false reference when A seZ "Lookit that," and B sees it, too.

We do the same with the ordinal dimension, "time," which is wholly as
internal as proprioception, inertia, up, pain, LUUUve...

>
> This is no worse than, say, le Chatelier's Principle, which is a very
> interesting one, leading on into considerations of dissipative process,
> leading on into considerations of cosmogenesis and biogenesis . . . .
>
>
>> Perhaps the first corollary is more interesting: the universe
>>/has/ no "outside," i.e., there is no such thing as "the
>>supernatural." Now to do the geometry...
>>
>>
>>>I was so repulsed by Aristotle's fake prediction ("Either there will be a
>>>sea-battle tomorrow, or not"-- if you "predict" ALL POSSIBLE COURSES,
>>>you're not predicting at all, even when the total set of "predictions" is
>>>distributed among several "predictors", which is how "psychics" and
>>>"economic forecasters" and so on work) and the bit about women having
>>>fewer teeth than men (there comes a point where theorizing without
>>>verification becomes reprehensible) that I resent looking into Aristotle
>>>even for the good stuff . . . .
>>>
>>>That applies to Plato, too. In spades.
>>
>>Which, I've "always" been certain, was Aristotle's point.
>> The /fact/ is that Aristotle went galumphing off with Alexander
>>/precisely to/ "go look" at the world, to count its teeth.
>
>
> He didn't count the boys' and girls' teeth very well . . . .


I really think the remark was made in observation of, e.g.,
Platonism, esp. the fallacy of the Cave.
Sarcasm doesn't carry well in print, esp. if the translator
doesn't want it to.

>
> And I don't think Plato made it out of the study or dinner-room much.
>
>
>> He's routinely credited as the first philosopher to do that as a
>>principle.
>> One result is that he put the "Fifth" (fourth*) Element back into
>>Anaximander's "Four Elements." It's the Church that threw it back
>>out so that it could teach you to laugh at the result.
>>
>>__________
>>* Water, Air, Earth, Homos, Fire
>
>


--
-------(m+
~/)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org

 

mimus wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:18:43 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>
>
>>mimus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:08:57 -0600, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Aren't they cutting our beer off, like they did America's soldiers' beer
>>>>>in the Korean War, due to Christian women's groups objecting?
>>>>
>>>>No wonder we didn't win.
>>>
>>>Naw, that was a political decision, once the Chinese were being rolled
>>>back up the goddam peninsula (the second time North for many of the
>>>American/UN troops, after the second time South), to stop at the Parallel,
>>>instead of pursuing it.
>>>
>>>The war had become a slaughterhouse for the Chinese by that point.
>>>
>>>They couldn't have done a thing if the UN forces had moved on further
>>>North to the Yalu again.
>>>
>>>Remember, Stalin was supposed to have supplied air-support to the Chinese,
>>>and backed out.
>>
>>We'll never know how many Russians flew over the Yalu, just as we'll
>>never know how many flew over the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
>> But the /fact/ is that Russ supplied a hell of a lot of MiGs to
>>both places, and those we /could/ count, and know the support pyramid
>>for.
>
>
> But not an actual air-fleet. The air-fleet. Whichever one it was
> that was sitting right on the Northeast border of North Korea.
>
> And kept sitting.
>

Right. Mostly (so far as we can tell) piloted by Russians, some
better Chinese, with Chinese and NK ground crews and cooks.
But it was never very large, its primary mission (as off Viet Nam)
being to train Russian pilots in their own new fighters. The
commission of any real force in support of an invasion was even more
critically subject to censure and dismissal than was MacArthur -- for
the same reasons.
Numbers and Nukes.

>
>>>Otherwise the Chinese troops with Soviet air-support would've likely
>>>swept the UN and South Korean forces into the sea off Pusan, or, if
>>>they didn't, it would've been a damned close-run thing.
>>
>>Neh, for a change. The only thing the F86-E couldn't do to a MiG-17 was
>>catch the sucker this side of the Yalu if it had a ten-mile head start.
>>More aces /per capita/ over Korea than in any other war.
>> And the Navy had ground support pretty well covered with the F4U-5
>>and F10F-4 and -7, the latter also a MiG-smacker.
>
>
> I point to the significant fact that the Chinese _without_ Soviet
> air-support rolled the guys all the way South from the Yalu clear past
> Seoul again . . . .
>

Um, we never made it to the Yalu with anything but the planes and
some scouts. MacArthur was not cashed for /proposing/ to go to or
over the Yalu (though he did, and often); he was cashed for crossing
the "38th Parallel" (already the original line of contention when the
North first invaded) in "significant" numbers and distances, and
solely because his "Authorised" mission was to /defend/ the South,
not roll up the North.
A good offense is /not/ the best defense when you're holding a
Treaty Line for somebody else.
You just hafta sit there and watch the losses or go home.
(Can /you/ say, "Cambodia"?)

>
>>>Again.
>>
>>That they did it the first time was a matter of belief: nobody believed
>>they would try, so nobody had "enough" to stop 'em if they did.
>
>
> Not to mention that all Army regiments had been dropped from three to two
> battalions as an economy measure by Truman, and those usually not filled,
> and that the regiments used in the first month of the fighting by the US
> were from the occupation force in Japan, which weren't remotely
> combat-capable (Truman called them "those poor bastards").


I'm pretty sure the entire "regiment" system had been dropped by
then, as the 24th was a ROAD Division organised by brigades -- which
had, yes, /two/ infantry battalions per brigade, but detached from
two three-battalion regiments assigned the Division even currently.
Each brigade also had one armor and one artillery battalion, each
detached from a three-battalion regiment assigned to the Division.
Similar detachments from the Division Supply, Medical,
Maintenance, Cavalry, and Signal battalions filled each Brigade to an
independently-functioning unit, three to a Division, the bulk of the
support battalions working as and under the Support Brigade.
But maybe that was "after," for the eventual counterattack. The
24th MI started life as truck light infantry (landing), put together
/fast/ after Pearl, and seems seldom to have landed with even their
trucks.
Today, lead elements yank their tanks out the backs of low-pass
C-5As and their tracks/trucks out of C-130s and drive off in 'em.

The Armored Divisions are similar, but with two armor battalions and
one MI battalion per brigade.

>
> The Marines had been so diminished by economy measures that it took a
> month to put together a "Provisional Regiment" and get it to Korea.


"Nobody believed." I'd like to think we never did that again, but
then there was Grenada...

>
> All the ingredients that go into making up a good debacle, diminished
> force, greater responsibilities, and strategic surprise.
>
> That first month was kind of depressing.
>

Lotta thousand-yard-stares and 5000+ still MIA that nobody talks
about, "The Forgotten War."

>
>> And they had so little on that first push that most of our overrun
>>elements made it back to our own side through the gaps in less than two
>>weeks.
>
>
> Well, it wasn't a matter of lines, due to mountains and things canalizing
> major mechanized movements both forward and backward along valleys and
> passes . . . .


How We Did It.

>
> So the fragments that had to hoof it simply wandered South or Southeast
> over the hills and far away until they found a "tied-in" US or ROK unit
> (waved at a jeep going by or something).


Yup. The 24th went south mostly, the 1st Marines east from the
reservoir until "relieved" by that "provisional" "3rd Marine 'Division'."

>
> One GI from the first American fight, the one at Osan, ended up going
> _West_ to the coast and ended up hitching a ride on a sampan around the
> coast to Pusan.
>

"I will quit my post only when I am properly relieved."
(When your post quits you, you go find it.)

>
>>>("Not the Naktong again!")
>
>
> Indeed.
>


--
-------(m+
~/)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org