
Ya gotta love it.
Just stuff about life, politics, and my disposition in general....
“You can say: "Nuts" to my opinion on how you should vote but I'm very concerned, Sir.
First, let me remind you that USA didn't win the 39-45 War alone. My brother was there with his Canadian Regiment on the Normandy Beach. So were the British. They were grateful you came. You waited long enough and you could not have done it alone.
Let me remind you also that you have done a few political mistakes on your own without any of the world's advice. You elected JFK for his charisma. He nearly drove your country and the world to a nuclear disaster. I lived in Houston at the time. I wasn't sure if we would make it back home alive. You elected Jimmy Carter who was (still is) an incredibly naive doer and counsellor in the Middle East. You elected Bill Clinton who allowed 9/11 to be organised right under his eyes. Your country is allowing an impeached President to push his wife to the White House for "his" third term. The other Democratic candidate has strong Muslim connectations that are hardly mentioned in your media. Those two "possible next presidents" talk everyday about stopping IMMEDIATELY the Iraq War when I know that Iran will jump on Iraq as soon as the Americans leave.The Middle east will then become a boiling inferno.
You don't want my advise? I cannot vote in your elections but I'm scared to death about what you will do. You've done mistakes before. I live right next door. I'm scared to death, Sir. Maybe the American people should listen to what I have to say. You have been blinded enough in the past. I am a friend, not your enemy.”
"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."
"So we all tend to give science credence, even when it is not warranted. I will show you many examples of unwarranted credence tonight. But here’s an example to begin. This is the famous Drake equation from the 1960s to estimate the number of advanced civilizations in the galaxy.
N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL
Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet’s life during which the communicating civilizations live.
The problem with this equation is that none of the terms can be known. As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. The mathematical appearance is deceptive. In scientific terms—by which I mean testable hypotheses—the Drake equation is really meaninglessness."