Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,844 Year: 4,101/9,624 Month: 972/974 Week: 299/286 Day: 20/40 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Changing World Order
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5951
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 187 of 302 (903676)
12-15-2022 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Phat
12-15-2022 1:48 AM


Re: Red+Blue Makes Green?
Blue plus yellow makes green, using subtractive colors (ie, mixing pigments, eg crayons as you must have observed in your childhood). Using additive colors (ie, mixing light), green is one of the primary colors (ie, red-blue-green, hence the RGB codes on computer displays).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Phat, posted 12-15-2022 1:48 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Phat, posted 12-15-2022 9:26 AM dwise1 has replied
 Message 189 by Phat, posted 12-15-2022 9:39 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5951
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 190 of 302 (903688)
12-15-2022 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Phat
12-15-2022 9:26 AM


Re: Red+Blue Makes Green?
For color mixing, science class would have told you why while art class would have told you how. In Alton Brown's episode on Xmas cookies, he demonstrates how to create many colors of icing out of the three primary subtractive colors. An aid that he offers is a color wheel he bought at an art supply store.
In high school and college I worked for my father, a general contractor and master carpenter. His painting subcontractor was also a master of his craft. He would buy odd lots of paint of whatever colors (within reason, I would think) and then mix in pigments to change the color to whatever color was needed -- I say within reason since I cannot imagine being able to bring black paint back to white with pigments since black and brown are basically all subtractive colors mixed together (just as white light is all additive colors mixed together ).
Back in the CGA (Color Graphics Adapter) days when we had sixteen colors to work with, each letter location was defined by an 8-bit byte with four bits for the foreground and another four bits for the background color. Those four bits were RGBI (red-green-blue-bright) with which you could define any of the 16 colors; eg, 11112 was white, 11102 was gray as was 00012 (as I recall), and 00002 was black.
Also, 11012 (red-green-bright) was yellow while 11002 was dark yellow, which looked rather like brown. For our greenhouse control systems, we provided an IBM XT clone with a Hercules adapter which was high definition monochome. The text color we had chosen was based on that adapter, so we used yellow text either bright or dim. It wasn't until a customer had requested a color adapter that we realized that the dim yellow "looked like a shitty brown". The good news was that the company finally sprung for a development PC with a color adapter in order to avoid other such surprises.
On the Web, we use a hex triplet notation which gives a color's RGB values in a range from 0 to 255 (#00 to #FF in hexadecimal (base 16), which computer types are conversant in) color codes like:
White -- #FFFFFF
Black -- #000000
Red -- #FF0000
DarkRed -- #8B0000
Crimson -- #DC143C
Pink -- #FFC0CB
Orange -- #FFA500
Yellow -- #FFFF00
Gold -- #FFD700
Purple -- #800080 (ie, mid-range red and blue)
Magenta -- #FF00FF (ie, full-range red and blue)
Green -- #008000 (ie, mid-range green)
Lime -- #00FF00 (ie, full-range bright green)
Blue -- #0000FF
DarkBlue -- #00008B
Navy -- #000080
LightBlue -- #ADD8E6
Cyan -- #00FFFF (AKA "Aqua")
Web software also uses well-defined color names, each of which translates to a specific hex triplet. One lookup reference is at "140 named colors".
Share and enjoy!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Phat, posted 12-15-2022 9:26 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5951
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 194 of 302 (903981)
12-19-2022 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by AZPaul3
12-19-2022 7:10 PM


Re: Observation.
Correction:
All the national news channels, cept one, are focused on the House committee's indictment referal of Trump on criminal charges.
‚Äč
Fox News is pushing it's latest Hunter Biden laptop conspiracy.
And, yeah, that's sadly typical of the FAKE News Network.
For example: On 06 Jan 2021 Sean Hannity called Trump multiple time (as I recall) begging Trump to call off his people -- ie, everybody, including Hannity, knew full well that those were Trump people attacking the Capitol. Then Hannity turned right around and "reported" on the air that Trump's people were actually Antifa.
Perhaps the most conclusive evidence that that was not Antifa is the fact that Trump did not immediately call in 82nd Airborne to clear them out like he ordered for the BLM demonstration at Lafayette Square (Trump ordered active duty Army troops in, which was damned illegal so Esper kept ordering them back). The very fact that Trump refused to take any action is evidence that he knew full well that the "rioters" were his people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by AZPaul3, posted 12-19-2022 7:10 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by AZPaul3, posted 12-19-2022 8:34 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 196 by Phat, posted 12-20-2022 10:54 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5951
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 201 of 302 (904032)
12-20-2022 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Phat
12-20-2022 10:54 AM


Re: Take Me To Your Liter
... I also think Biden's kid is a buffoon and should in no way be paid taxpayer money for whatever consulting role(s) he may have.
Sorry, but what the actual fuck are you talking about?
What consulting role? What taxpayer money? What the fuck are you talking about?
I most certainly know of no government consulting role being set up for Hunter. Do you know of one? Or are you just being deceived by GQP disinformation again? Contrast that with Trump's kids serving consulting roles, including Jared Duschner who was given a top secret clearance despite having completely disqualified himself by lying on the security clearance investigation questionnaire (Standard Form 86 -- I've had a lot of experience with that form). Where were the screams of Republicans' fake outrage then?
All I can think of that you and your disinformation sources could be thinking about is when Hunter Biden worked as a consultant for that Ukranian gas company, Burisma, and was hired onto their board. Burisma had been involved in serious corruption and was in the process of cleaning up its act. Hunter is a lawyer who had been part of a consulting firm since 2006 that dealt with international and business law. Burisma hired his firm to consult with their restructuring and put Hunter on the board of directors to serve in that role.
Burisma hired him and paid him, so why would you think that he was being paid with any US government money?
So what the fuck are you talking about?
Glenn may have some insights. He is an independent conservative (according to Alexa) and seems to also distance himself from Trump.
From the title you gave in Message 82, The Great Reset: Joe Biden and the Rise of Twenty-First-Century Fascism, he seems to be claiming that the rise of fascism is Biden's fault. What's his case for that?
From reviews, it appears that he's just echoing your "Globalism" boogeyman, a stale rehash of the "International Jewish Communist Conspiracy of Bankers and Lawyers". Is your next anti-Semitic step to embrace QAnon's revival of the centuries-old blood libel (the false claim that Jews kidnap and kill Christian children in order to use their blood in their secret rituals -- my professor, Rabbi Kalir, told us that that is why you open the door for Elijah during the Seder, in order to allow anybody to come in and see for themselves that the wine is actually wine)?
The reviews have Beck pushing his tired old New World Order conspiracy_theory; from that Wikipedia link:
quote:
Following the start of the 21st century, and specifically during the late-2000s financial crisis, many politicians and pundits, such as Gordon Brown and Henry Kissinger, used the term "new world order" in their advocacy for a comprehensive reform of the global financial system and their calls for a "New Bretton Woods" taking into account emerging markets such as China and India. These public declarations reinvigorated New World Order conspiracism, culminating in talk-show host Sean Hannity stating on his Fox News program Hannity that the "conspiracy theorists were right". Progressive media-watchdog groups have repeatedly criticized Fox News in general, and its now-defunct opinion show Glenn Beck in particular, for not only disseminating New World Order conspiracy theories to mainstream audiences, but possibly agitating so-called "lone wolf" extremism, particularly from the radical right.
IOW, Glenn Beck is a known conspiracy dingbat. Also please note that it was G.H.W. Bush who announced a "New World Order" after Desert Storm, a Republican, not a Democrat. And it's the capitalists running international corporations who would benefit from globalism -- and who are moving US industry overseas which is supported by the Republicans, whereas Biden is working to bring industry back to the USA as in his recent chips act (semiconductor manufacturing).
So just what the hell is he talking about? And why do you support their nonsense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Phat, posted 12-20-2022 10:54 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Phat, posted 12-20-2022 2:49 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 205 by Phat, posted 12-20-2022 3:07 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5951
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 202 of 302 (904033)
12-20-2022 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Phat
12-20-2022 10:54 AM


Re: Take Me To Your Liter
Oh, and your subtitle using the word, "liter".
Are you also anti-metric? Are you one of those fools who thinks he's being "patriotic" by rejecting the metric system?
We've already seen how Republicans have misappropriated the word "patriot" to describe their own treasonous actions, including their attempts to overthrow the legitimate government of the US.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Phat, posted 12-20-2022 10:54 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Phat, posted 12-20-2022 2:54 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5951
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 219 of 302 (904184)
12-23-2022 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Phat
12-23-2022 1:44 AM


Re: Candace Over AOC
You keep misrepresenting what authoritarianism is. Please learn what it actually is.
Bob Altemeyer is a now-retired psychology professor who specialized in authoritarianism. Most of his papers used a lot of math and statistical analysis, so he wrote his book, The Authoritarians, in a form that is much more accessible to the average reader.
He also made it as freely available as possible (at the link I just provided). I have the PDF edition, but it's also in a few e-Reader formats as well as audio. It's an interesting and fairly easy read.
A word of advice about reading it: READ THE FOOTNOTES. Some of the most interesting information is in the footnotes, despite his self-deprecating comments about how masochistic you would need to be to read the footnotes.
Please do most definitely add this to your reading list.
In 2020, Altemeyer co-authored a book with John Dean (of Watergate infamy), Authoritarian Nightmare. When he wrote The Authoritarians in 2006, "Dubya" Bush was the worst US president he had ever seen. Now that distinction goes to Trump.
Another book to add is Timothy Snyder's On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Phat, posted 12-23-2022 1:44 AM Phat has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5951
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 220 of 302 (904185)
12-23-2022 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Phat
12-23-2022 2:15 AM


Re: Candace Over AOC
I found that a good overview is this YouTube video: The Difference Between Socialism, Communism, and Marxism Explained by a Marxist ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyl2DeKT-Vs&t=3s -- sorry, trying to embed the video doesn't work ). Eleven and a half minutes.
ABE:
There is a lot of confusion between social democracy and democratic socialism such that many advocates of social democracy call it "democratic socialism". That is very incorrect. The video gets it right by showing democratic socialism being socialist and social democracy being capitalist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Phat, posted 12-23-2022 2:15 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Phat, posted 12-23-2022 8:32 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5951
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 288 of 302 (910935)
05-26-2023 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Phat
05-26-2023 1:01 PM


Re: Dalio short comment on national debt
All that raising the debt limit (an old compromise, an artificial requirement set in WWI to satisfy opponents to war spending) does is enable us to raise the cash to make payments.
IOW, it's that dirty nasty "L"-word: Liquidity.
It's what politicians with a business background brag about: making payroll. But what does making payroll actually entail? Borrowing money! That is the exact same thing as raising the debt limit, borrowing cash to make required payments.
Don't confuse personal finances with business finances. As a person, the less debt we carry the better (eg, my condo and car are paid off, so all I owe is whatever I paid for this month with my credit cards, which I pay off completely every month). But debt can be a valuable tool for a business. Or a government. But explaining specific examples is above my pay grade. Basically, smart use of debt can help a business navigate the delicate liquidity balance that can mean life or death for a business, or a government. And debt can be used as an advantage in business negotiations. Or interest paid on a loan could be an attractive choice over an alternative -- eg, the old story of a wealthy person who didn't want to pay for a safety deposit box but carrying debt with the bank would qualify him for a free box, so he took out a loan he didn't need but whose monthly payments were less than the cost of the box. Debt can also be a good thing in the business' tax strategy.
Cash (AKA "liquidity") is not a good thing for a business to hold; it's next to useless. In personal finances, it's like the stereotype survivor of the bank failures in the Great Depression who keeps all his savings as cash stuffed in his mattress. It doesn't do anything except lose value due to inflation. If he instead deposited it in a bank account that earns interest or invest it in other ways, then it would accrue interest; he would have his money work for him instead of just gathering dust.
Instead of losing money by holding cash, a business will have other kinds of assets; eg, capital equipment, real estate, investments, inventory, accounts receivable. Those assets have the added benefit of earning money, which cash cannot do. They also have the problem of not being liquid.
That liquidity problem is because to pay its bills, including payroll, the business does still need cash. The business' CFO needs to balance his assets in order to have enough cash at the right time to pay the bills. We mere individuals do this by not spending (though my decades-long strategy for big bills, "balloon payments" like home and auto insurance and property tax, had been to deposit part of my paycheck to savings and then use that; now it's my military retirement pay that serves that purpose), but a business cannot afford to do that. It also cannot afford to liquidate part of its capital equipment (needed to earn revenue), real estate or investments (taxes! I got dinged really hard a couple years ago disbursing part of my IRA to help my son). Accounts receivable is perhaps the best source for cash, but that check's still in the mail so no cash on hand. Liquidating your assets is bad for business!
The solution is for the CFO to take out a short-term loan, to go further into debt in order to pay the bills. That means that when a businessman-turned-politician brags about making payroll, he's actually confessing to lots of visits to the bank to go into debt. Yes, that was short-term debt that could be paid off once the accounts receivable checks arrived in the mail, but it was debt nonetheless.
That is what the government is doing: borrowing money to raise the cash to pay its obligations, AKA "its bills". Raising the debt limit enables the government to borrow that money to pay its bills.
If you want to talk about lowering the deficit and paying off the debt, then the place for that conversation is in the budgeting process, not here. Raising the debt limit has nothing at all to do with the budget.
And for that matter, you would want to vote in Democrats who are the fiscally responsible ones. All Republicans can do is spend like drunken sailors running up huge deficits and adding enormously to the debt while eliminating revenue streams (eg, massive tax cuts for the wealthiest).
The choice should be clear, so don't play dumb.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Phat, posted 05-26-2023 1:01 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Percy, posted 05-27-2023 5:16 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024