adsfqwop

Must be a reference to this:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/HBTQ

Oh boy..you clearly haven't investigated flat earth properly yet. Arguments like that don't stand up in their universe. They simply create light that only travels as far as needed, to fit their model, and other curious contraptions.

Consider yourself lucky though, because you will grow gray hair quickly when venturing down into that labyrinth.

See interview here with Catherine Austin Fitts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-57aexDfLk

Austin Fitts Bio:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Austin_Fitts#Backgro...

I shudder to think what happens in 20 more years, when the last potato peelers are gone :-/ The movie "Idiocracy" inevitably comes to mind [1] :(

However I do think it's something more than just the burden or unburden of our new technology. Logical thinking should be an universal trait, no matter what the environment is like.

However one thing which is eating into that equation, is logical thinking is almost never promoted in modern education. Even in a declining IQ environment, promoting and teaching logical thinking would reverse a lot of the seeming "stupidity" in our society.

But I still do think there is something more going on. It's not just (lack of) education.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAqIJZeeXEc

I think what you mean is "The miracle weed killer is saving the chemical pesticide executive's pensions, while often devastating neighboring farms". That's the real honest headline.

I'm sorry but this is exactly the mentality that will drive us into a herbicide apocalypse. Farming food for the population is not a game. Stop looking at farming as some sort of equation on how to turn acres into dollars.

The measure of good farming should not be yield per acre, but nutrient density and food safety instead. It's completely upside down at the moment.

Do you think his grandfather would have cared about "competitive advantage" in favor of dropping the standard of produce quality? No. His grandfather had exactly the mentality we need in farming, which is quality before quantity.

You as a farmer are responsible for the health of the people you feed, and the health of the land and its ecosystem.

This mentality that everything has to be turned into dollars in the most efficient way, will lead farmers to sell us chemical bricks packaged as food if they just can get away with it, because..you know..it's efficient.

Think about that for a moment. When the only measure is dollars, you sacrifice everything that is important for humans and the planet in favor of profits.

Yeah thanks Microsoft. They apparently never thought of someone playing mp3's from a network drive!! It drove me nuts for months, until I figured out exactly what you just posted.

Yes. There is a good saying "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon him not understanding it.".

The continued success of GM research and their commercial interests depend heavily on positive opinions and outcomes. It should be simple to see that this can lead to suppression of negative issues.

You can also realize from this that something else can happen; over-promotion of positive outcomes and projections.

Once you start to analyze the GM landscape with these ideas in mind, you start to understand and see that the discourse is currently heavily biased towards promoting only one side of the coin.

Late reply. Not sure if you will see this, but think of it as the part of the government that doesn't change with the new administration. That is very much simplified, but gives you some idea.

You think some greenhorn administration comes in and says how things are done? No, the deep state makes the rules. They know the game, they have played it forever, they make the rules. What changes every four years is just a facade.

Bingo.

There is a documentary film made about this called "Onkalo - Into Eternity".

It's fascinating to hear the designers rationalize their decisions, and the problems they think and hope they need to take into account for the future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUQ-Mhb4OVo

Sure, burying your head in the sand is a strategy too. Good for you.

Which people on the ground? You sound like you're getting your talking points from CNN.

How about a reporter who has personally visited Syria and Aleppo herself?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueyWGyddepw

You do not seem to be aware that there are terrorists operating in Syria that are funded by the west. Let's just start with that.

It doesn't make any sense, unless you realize that the deep state wants to destabilize Syria and dethrone Assad by force.

Then suddenly the narrative we're being offered starts making more sense. And I stress the word narrative, as in "story".

Unfortunately the "upping" part of the ramp is only an illusion.

There is only one ramp, and this ramp has been going upwards since the Patriot Act of 2001. And it will keep going up, no matter who is in office.

"Fake news" is only a problem for those who are afraid their status quo is in danger from it.

That is the only reason this topic was brought up into our consciousness in the first place.

Therefore it's easy to conclude that the term "fake news" was actually born because of the real culprit behind the problem was "inconvenient news".

"Fake news" was and is just a cover story, made up by people and institutions threatened by truth being exposed at their expense.

Try and squeeze discord into a 400x400 window (or something similarly small and out of the way) to put in the corner of your screen. Mission impossible.

Squeeze an IRC client into 400x400, and you'll still have plenty of room to read what's going on.

IRC sample (it's not 400x400, but you should get the idea):

http://www.ubuntugeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/smuxi-0...

Discord sample for comparison:

http://static.filehorse.com/screenshots-mac/messaging-and-ch...

I think there's a lot that could be done to make Discord more desktop real estate friendly. It's one semi-dealbreaker for me too. I can't have one single chat app require almost one whole new monitor.

Right, of course, since we live in an universe devoid of genetic differences, it stands to reason that two groups described differently are in fact different.

Genetic differences are FACTS. If you do not account for facts, you're operating in the twilight zone.

The current witch hunters on words seem to fail to understand that language is designed for communication between humans. It's a communication protocol.

Taking offence to a communication protocol, is like saying TCP/IP is offensive because there aren't enough of the number 7 used in the TCP/IP protocol, and it's discriminating against the equality of all numbers.

No. It's a protocol optimized for communication, not some sort of emotional playground.

To try to alter the communication protocol based on personal emotions degrades its usefulness and diminishes the ability to communicate effectively.

So now the TCP/IP packet header needs to be extended 25%, and the driver needs to ensure equal distribution of all numbers during communication, further increasing overhead by another 75%.

This is where we are headed with our language, when we allow PC politics to dictate how words should be used.

Just in Holland and Germany alone there are over 1000 separate citizen groups trying to get compensation for those suffering from the noise. You could start to suspect that the problems seem to be more serious than just something inside the shadow distance.

Just out of curiosity here's the noise profile (spectrogram) of a turbine at 1,37 km (0.85 miles), measured inside a home, where we can see the base frequency and several harmonic multiples:

http://i.imgur.com/m31hhR5.png

Here's the same turbine at 5km (3.1 miles), again inside a house, where the turbine is shut off at 11 a.m.:

http://i.imgur.com/pRJeunj.png

As we can see this low frequency noise can travel very long distances, and when you have wind farms with multiple turbines they can even create interference patterns, that could amplify the problems further.

Good attitude, however I'm sorry I'm going to have to invoke a little bit of cognitive pain for you :-/, and point out that your base assumption is that the FDA and CDC are benevolent, fully competent, and always operating in the best interest of the population.

To be fully honest, you also need to consider the case where that may not be so, and what that would then imply.

Does he know Glyphosate mimics glycine? I'm pretty sure he doesn't. That's an unknown to him.

Whenever you study a complex subject, you have to be aware that there are things you might not know about. And there are also things you might not know you do not know.

That's an unknown unknown.

You're making light of a very serious issue among scientists and science. An honest scientist keeps looking for the unknown, a dishonest scientist (to himself) stops looking, and then it becomes dogma.

This guy thinks he knows it all, but he does not, and he does not even realize that there could be things he does not know. When you do that, you can easily switch from doing science, to (accidentally or deliberately) start pushing an agenda.

You fail to account for the possibility of unknown unknowns, and again you're displaying biased cognitive dissonance.

You can't determine generational toxicity from LD50 profiles. You are simplifying everything way too much.

Glyphosate is an analog to glycine. You know, the building blocks for proteins. DuPont did a study in 2007 that shows glyphosate is integrating in protein structures. Does that not worry you?

Glyphosate is also a chelating agent. Glyphosate impacts the shikimate pathway, and is said to be non-toxic because humans do not possess the shikimate pathway. Yet the shikimate pathway is present in bacteria, archaea, and eukarya, and all of them are harmed by Glyphosate. Do we have bacteria in our guts utilizing the shikimate pathway? Yes we do.

You are running with the base assumption that Monsanto is benevolent and honest. This is where your cognitive dissonance stems from.

Did you read the article?

The court documents included Monsanto’s internal emails and email traffic between the company and federal regulators. The records suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics and indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

Yet the first thing you think about is accusing organic farming of conflicts of interest?

You are a perfect example of extreme cognitive dissonance. What's even more scary is you're working in the field of biotechnology. It only reinforces my view that many of you are living in your own dogmatic information bubble.

While I am a firm believer in logic reasoning, we also have to realize its shortcomings. The shortcomings stem from the fact that it is our brain that is used to draw the inferences and causal chains that lead to our logical conclusions.

Therefore, when our brain is missing information, or just failing to piece together relevant causal chains, it is easy for it to come to the wrong conclusions.

Your 9/11 reasoning is a good example why you just can't blindly rely on logic, without being extra careful you are not using the shortest, cheapest, and least information dense causal chain (i.e. drawing too simple conclusion, because of lack of information which lead to lack of complex reasoning).

Let me present you with another causal chain that is equally "logical", but requires you to realize you have a complex causal network to decode, instead of the simple a-b-c 9/11-Bush-WMD reasoning you just used.

Let's say the Bush family wanted a war in the middle east. To start that war, an event was needed to unite the US population and steer the public opinion in order to further this agenda.

What has happened since 9/11 in the middle east? A new enemy was constructed; "The Terrorists", and Irak, Syria, Kuwait, Afghanistan etc....has become a war zone.

Did they need to plant WMDs in Iraq to start these wars?

Did they need to plant WMDs in Iraq to start the Iraq invasion?

Answer is no. They got what they wanted anyway.

Therefore, to say that planting WMDs was a requirement for 9/11 "conspiracies" to be true, is just not a valid conclusion.

I'm not saying that what I described above is what happened, I'm just pointing out that the logical reasoning you just used is far too simple, and does not take into account complex causal relationships that may be at work.

Such complex causal relationships only reveal themselves after you dig deep enough into all the available information.

So the problem of blindly relying on logical reasoning for decision making, is the failure to understand that lack of sufficient information can still lead to incorrect assumptions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw&t=1m03s

In many cases it has been shown that conspiracies turn out to be true. And instead of the simple causal chains people believe that can be used to refute the conspiracies, it turns out that what you need to understand everything is not a simple chain, but something much more complex instead.

I like to call these complex things not causal chains, but causal networks. That is where the real logic brainwork starts.

You could start with something like Paul Craig Roberts, Global Research, Carl Denninger, Bill Still, ZeroHedge, The Corbett Report, Rice Farmer. I use many other ones, but those should be decent entry points to find your own preferred sources.

Alex Jones is often the person to trot out when you want to discredit the alternative news media. What you then get is exactly the reaction you just got, which is aggressive push-back and a desire to never research the topic yourself.

Because what just happened in your head? You generalized and lumped all alternative news media into a group that is exactly like Alex Jones; far out and kooky.

This is the desired effect.

The fact is there are many good alternative news sources, that go out of their way to try and find out the truth behind the corporate bought out main stream media.

Just because there is one bad apple, does not mean all other news sources are exactly the same.

Whenever I google a problem with a microsoft product, and the search ends up on one of these answer.microsoft.com pages, I always click on the link with an enormous feeling of dread.

I don't think I've ever seen a usable answer on that site.

You do understand that there is a vast financial interest in "debunking" scientific findings like this?

The first red flag that there are corporate interests behind any "debunking" effort is that an actually serious finding is not discussed openly, but various outlets immediately go for the discredit and debunk method.

That's corporate modus operandi 101 for burying inconvenient people and data.

Anthony Samel, a chemist researching glyphosate, has already practically proven this weaving is happening.

He is finding glyphosate in everything that has proteins in it. Especially things that contain gelatin, where gelatin is made out of animal collagen, and collagen is the most abundant protein in mammals.

For example gummy bears, protein powders, nutritional supplements, and even in vaccines (several vaccines contain gelatin). So we are eating it, getting injected with it, and it is integrating into our own proteins as well.

Never mind that Julian Assange is saying the source was not Russia.