Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm surprised the moon landing conspiracy only gets 7%.


This is a generator site that was launched a while back.


http://www.verifiedfacts.org/


Obv shortly after launch the creators of the site received threats from people accusing them of working for the govt spreading disinformation

ha ha, ever the way.


I enjoyed aaronovich's voodo histories, which in writing he obviosuly found himself similarly accused.

It's the ultimate get out clause that allows CT types to wallow in their own circular logic.


This was fun, how Jimmy Page destroyed Eddie and the Hot Rod

http://greatwen.com/2013/03/27/jimmy-page-aleister-crowley-and-the-curse-of-eddie-and-the-hot-rods/

Fantastic (if slightly tongue-in-cheek) article on the current state of GBSSR.

http://potlatch.typepad.com/weblog/2013/04/brezhnev-capitalism.html


also linked to because it's the sort of thing that's guaranteed to wind Huguenot up ;)


Though he does commit the cardianl sin of using trope=motif rather than trope=metaphor, but that's probably one for the irrational hatreds thread.....

The fascinating and disturbing world of FOOF (or dioxygen diflouride to give it its scientific name).


http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/02/23/things_i_wont_work_with_dioxygen_difluoride.php


Highlight: "Being a high energy oxidizer, dioxygen difluoride reacted vigorously with organic compounds, even at temperatures close to its melting point. It reacted instantaneously with solid ethyl alcohol, producing a blue flame and an explosion. When a drop of liquid 02F2 was added to liquid methane, cooled at 90?K., a white flame was produced instantaneously, which turned green upon further burning. When 0.2 (mL) of liquid 02F2 was added to 0.5 (mL) of liquid CH4 at 90?K., a violent explosion occurred."


This stuff can, literally, set ice on fire. Mental.

A fellow XKCD reader, obvs.


Have you read any more from that chap's series of "Things I Won't Work With"? I don't know one end of a test tube from another but even I know that some of this stuff sounds utterly horrific.


When discussing the rather smelly selenophenol he notes its smell is "...the biggest stinker I have run across. . .imagine 6 skunks wrapped in rubber innertubes and the whole thing is set ablaze. That might approach the metaphysical stench of this material."


Marvellous. [insert curry/pooh joke here]

interesting stuff, investment manager Lelsie GRantham on bubbles and climate change.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/apr/15/jeremy-grantham-population-china-climate


[climate change sceptics] are in the "screaming loudly" rather than the "fact based" part of the exercise, because they don't have the facts. They are masters at manufacturing doubt. What I have noticed on the blogs and in the comments section under articles is that over several years, as the scientific evidence for climate change gets stronger, the tone of the sceptics is getting shriller and more vicious and nastier all the time. The equivalent on the other side is a weary resignation, sorrow and frustration and amazement that people on the other side can't look at the facts. The sceptics are getting angrier and more vicious every year despite the more storms we have, and the more mad crazy weather we have?



One of the problems is that typically you are not dealing with the facts. Putting in more facts makes the sceptics more angry. They have profound beliefs ? as opposed to knowledge ? that they are willing to protect by all manner of psychological tricks. So you have people who are very smart - even great analysts and hedge fund managers - who on paper know that their argument is wrong, but who promote it fiercely because they are libertarians. Libertarians believe that any government interference is bad. Anyone with a brain knows that climate change needs governmental leadership and they can smell this is bad news for their philosophy.

The barking mad worlds of conspiracy theorists and jihadists collide

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/16/what_extremists_are_saying_about_the_boston_massacre?page=full


I noticed an even barkinger mad film shared on facebook which had already decided it was a 'false flag' operation, without even bothering for an official narrative to refute, and, bizarrely enough, placed the blame squarely at the feet of Steve Jackson who did those 'Choose Your Own Adventure' books I enjoyed as a boy.


The world would definitely be a duller place without them!!


*keenly awaits New Nexus' first linky on the matter*

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • From the BBC: "The conclusion of that deliberation is that we accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologise for that error of judgement." What is wrong is editing someone to make him say something they didn't.  With respect Sephiroth, this is something I know a bit about and I have encountered, over the last decade, people in programming editing contributors to make them say things they didn't, the end point being to hang them out to dry. It's happening more and more and it's my job to make sure that people on TV are not mis-represented, but shown in their true light so that viewers can make up their own minds. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes and how hard some us fight to keep things impartial.  It's also worth mentioning that I have personally lost work because of Trump suing US networks, and that's one of the lesser reasons why I'd like to see him gone.  But broadcasters have a moral obligation to tell the truth and that's the hill that most decent professionals in the industry are willing to die on. Otherwise, how can the viewing public trust anything that's beamed into their living rooms? 
    • Amazing work from Leon, doing out electrical survey and replacing our consumer board. Great communications, tidy work, reliable friendly and reasonably priced. A pleasure to have around and highly recommended. 
    • Counterpoint: there was zero misrepresentation of truth    never mind the bbc or the uk (for now)-  his own country and government impeached him for trying to overturn an election.  What happened was unforgivable. Trump adding a few “non violent”’ legally wise words absolves him of nothing  but back to bbc and uk.  They were correct and now we have Trump threatening to sue for a billion have English people lost all self-respect (that question was answers 9 years ago and is repeated almost daily) 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...