http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/c ... 977134.stm
(subject is a quote from a song)
UFOs are real...
- Tank Program
- Forum & Project Admin, PhD
- Posts: 6711
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:03 pm
- Phytotron
- Formerly Oscilloscope
- Posts: 5041
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
- Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
- Contact:
Anyone have any idear what portion of geeks are also complete wack-jobs? Can we get the story about the other geek who hacked into the secretive NASA secret government computer files that prove the moon landing was a fake, too? Or the geek who hacked into the secretive German secret government secret computers to prove that there was actually no Holocaust? Or how about the geek who discovered, trough secretive hacking of dark shadow secret government super secret super computers, that JFK was actually shot by another geek who had been arrested by the government for hacking, and then brainwashed and reprogrammed by a super-secret parapsychic agency in the secret wing of the shadow US government to shoot Kennedy because Kennedy was determined to actually go to the moon, but we all know that's impossible, so they had to make sure he was out of the way so LBJ could sign off on the faking of the moon landing, which he was fully behind because he foresaw it acting as a genius public relations distraction from his utter bungling of the Vietnam War?
Such easy questions! 100% (or 100%-1) of course! (the - 1 depends on the geek doing the counting)Oscilloscope wrote:Anyone have any idear what portion of geeks are also complete wack-jobs?
I say 100% since I consider myself a lunatic. Now the hard question would be to differentiate between wack-jobs, wingnuts, moonbats, lunatics/loonies, clinically insane, manic obsessive, simply deranged, mildly eccentric, partly peculiar, cardcarrying Libertarians (j/k haha), etc.
- Jonathan
- A Brave Victim
- Posts: 3391
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:50 am
- Location: Not really lurking anymore
Let's use some geometry.
0 abc 1 def 2 ghi 3 jkl 4 mno 5
Each item is a line/square/cube/hypercube of length/area/… 1. The size (length) of the above list is always 5-0=5, so your 100% would still be 100%, although it's likely that it will be simplified to 1. Back to addressing. There is an advantage to zero-based addressing in that zero is the additive identity. Example: consider a 4-by-4 array, laid out in one dimension as 4 sequential arrays between 0 and 4. So say we want to address the item between 2/4 and 3/4 in the array located between 1 and 2. Using 1-based addressing we would now have 2 as the address of the internal array. To get the address of the item inside, use 2-1+3/4=1.75. The subtraction of 1 is converting to 0-based addressing, where that step is unnecessary (1+2/4=1.5), which suggests that that is the way.
0 abc 1 def 2 ghi 3 jkl 4 mno 5
Each item is a line/square/cube/hypercube of length/area/… 1. The size (length) of the above list is always 5-0=5, so your 100% would still be 100%, although it's likely that it will be simplified to 1. Back to addressing. There is an advantage to zero-based addressing in that zero is the additive identity. Example: consider a 4-by-4 array, laid out in one dimension as 4 sequential arrays between 0 and 4. So say we want to address the item between 2/4 and 3/4 in the array located between 1 and 2. Using 1-based addressing we would now have 2 as the address of the internal array. To get the address of the item inside, use 2-1+3/4=1.75. The subtraction of 1 is converting to 0-based addressing, where that step is unnecessary (1+2/4=1.5), which suggests that that is the way.
I think most "ufo" stuff is bs and in general subscribe to the opinon that it's all simply the most effective red herring ever... But I'm not convinced by reports like these until they come up with an explanation of how such plasma fields (or other stuff) makes multiple persons affected have just about the same misinterpretations. Please note: I'm not saying plasma fields isn't an adequate explanation concerning individuals; it absolutely is and accounts for much more "lore" than ufo's, and is easily testable as well as most people are affected -- though some more than others, just like over-sensitivity to electrical fields. What I am saying is that it is weird/unexplained how they would make people at the same spot see mostly the same rather than wildly different stuff (individuals who get similar effects in controlled environments (and outside) see everything from succubi to vampires to aliens to fill-in-the-blanks).
I'm thinking of a case in England at a US air force base involving US as well as british military guards/police officers and more than once (same place & more or less the same groups of people). Iirc this is a rather welldocumented and famous/wellknown contact of the second degree (CE2) (i.e. not simply something strange in the sky) case and I wonder how they "avoided" it and others like it.
I guess it could be some sort of internal "psy ops" (yeah that's a misuse of the word imo - *shudder*), but well... that kind of throws it all back into the "conspiracy"-explanations category imo.
I'm sure I could dig up the name of the incident if anyone really cares (otherwise I wont care).
I'm thinking of a case in England at a US air force base involving US as well as british military guards/police officers and more than once (same place & more or less the same groups of people). Iirc this is a rather welldocumented and famous/wellknown contact of the second degree (CE2) (i.e. not simply something strange in the sky) case and I wonder how they "avoided" it and others like it.
I guess it could be some sort of internal "psy ops" (yeah that's a misuse of the word imo - *shudder*), but well... that kind of throws it all back into the "conspiracy"-explanations category imo.
I'm sure I could dig up the name of the incident if anyone really cares (otherwise I wont care).