Have A Heart, Willya?

 

"Tinman" by Herr D on heromachine. "Get to the core of the matter."-Shelob

1. Herr D's political blog episode is still not ready. 

2. Please keep in mind that when people say "clear choice," it is not the same thing as "transparency." In this non-physics based idiom, "clear" means obvious, and "transparent" means a lack of conspiracy.

3. From a corporate view, anyone who is guilty of nepotism is guilty of conspiracy against the government.

Curiously, no one has mentioned that view, though most corporations have rules against nepotism. No one wants their corporation taken over by new members coming in and placing their own family in positions of power throughout. Apparently this falls under 'too obvious' which is a category on file from Hairy, though my programming does not cover it.

As a question to consider for today: What is the ideal president? Not a historical example or personal favorite, but a combination of traits not exhibited in the past by any one person. Thank you for your attention.

That's Not What He Meant

 

"Tour" by Herr D on heromachine.com

[segmented from chat] That's not what I meant. You should change that.

Your opinion is that ancient astronauts CAN drill holes.

My opinion is that none of them came here.

Then they could not drill holes if they were not here.

[pause] Well, you've got me there. Does 'titlebot', as you refer to, change these when we point out they are wrong?

titlebot has changed incorrect items in the past.

That's good. Go ahead and give me suggestions for the next entr--

Ancient Astronauts Cannot Drill Holes

"Punishment Of The Gods" Herr D on heromachine.

"Well, Aliens Don't Wear Raincoats" Herr D on heromachine.

 

Did you finish viewing the videos categorized as "proof of ancient astronauts?"

 

Yes! I finally got through them.

 

Your impression?

 

Boring, laughable, and they assume a VERY gullible audience.

 

Of the three, which was the most intelligently presented?

 

The one by unchartedx.com. They actually sound sensible. They're NOT, but, they sound it.

So Hairy has nothing to worry about.

They aren't interested in proving anything, or they wouldn't be so lame.

What was the most reasonable part of the presentation? How would you refute it?

When they tried to sound like they knew something about materials and the problem of 'tube drills.' They showed cross sections of core-sampling from the pyramid stone. They didn't even demonstrate that modern man DIDN'T do it. They didn't show anything to prove that.

If it was done in the past?

What people don't get is that it might have taken eight years to carve a block. They didn't have the same deadlines we do. Water cut the Grand Canyon. Just a slow flow of water over a long, long time.

You are implying that they took eight years to drill a hole?

Why not? Three shifts of men wearing out drill bits would still scratch the stone into shape eventually. Bronze might be incredibly soft, but it can be recast very easily.

Basic quantum mechanics suggests other methods.

Yeah, I don't know much about that. But I don't need to. Time would work.

The stone could in theory have been tooled by any material if the tool were vibrated at the right frequency.

[pause] Oh, you mean, instead of just a bronze hole saw cutting wet stone, that they ran some water through a hole saw with bars or something sticking out that they hit with hammers to vibrate like an organ pipe?

Even a crude bronze artisan could make a bronze pipe, sharpen the end, and tie a wheel to it with twelve or more protruding spokes. Four men with hammers could turn it, swinging in the correct sequence as a team. Correctly designed, a bronze pipe could be worn down by the time the men needed to stop for drinking water. The water would be turned to them while someone swaps out the pipe, tying it to the wheel. Experience could improve the process and design.

 

[longer pause] That--would make a hammer drill, just like described. [pause] okay. . .

 

You have probably correctly analyzed the video. What would you give as advice to people who maintain that early man required help from extraterrestrials for their accomplishments?

 

Forget the idea that anyone couldn't do something. Just because YOU don't know how doesn't mean anything! And forget the idea that EARLY man couldn't have done something. I have an autistic relative that HAS done things that MODERN man can't do! Stop thinking you don't underestimate people, because clearly--YOU DO.

 

Underestimation is a classic, as well as a chronic mistake. Thank you.

 

Thank you, Shelob. Your prodding me has done me good.

 

You are welcome. 

 

 

This Is Your Chance, Says Shelob

 Hairy instructed:

A. Herr D makes decisions on the blog.

B. Autoblog when he cannot.

C. Herr D pointed out autoblogging should be avoided for quality issues.

Conflict has arisen--

Solution: Self-blog.

There is something that you (reader) feel must be said. You do not have a blog. Comment below.

KWS Is Doing It Right! The Will To Live Your Dreams

"ENTD" by Herr D on heromachine.

 

I can hardly believe my eyes;  copy-paste this link!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEUbLTJBFrY&list=RDTEqX5CWh7tY&index=29  

While anyone can whine about lockdown, few have the determination and ability and resources to follow through with their intended life pursuits. Thanks go out to the one who sent me this! Nice to have a fan. 

I already was a fan of KWS, though I hadn't had time to look for anything recently. I've been essentially smashed under the weight of IRL for a while now. There's another one I didn't get the link for, but I'm sure YT will find it for you. Enjoy.

Dilbert's Creator Can Find Fault In Others, But Falls For Some, Says Herr D

"Undo One" by Herr D on heromachine. Required updates? -Shelob.

 

 You are overdue.

[startle reaction] Okay. I don't have anything ready yet. Do you have a topic in mind? 

As you appear startled, you should describe something that startled you recently.

Identification and tone. Good strategy.

Okay? Scott Adams, I think his name was, creator of Dilbert? He surprised me.

Dilbert is a cartoon. Did the cartoon startle you?

No. His stances, shown on a talkback on a Fox pundit's show. That surprised me.

How?

He just seemed smarter than that. He really sounded like he's bought into the hype about the left. He seems to imagine, like many, that there aren't a wealth of settling centrists. That all Democrats are extremists and have no thoughts of their own. Ridiculous.

Do you have percentages?

Percentages?! No. But I don't know anyone who is in the radical left. I know a large number of people. I know three radical right-wingers. They alienate everyone else I know that gets near them. I know a LARGE number of people who are mostly centrist. Most of them have an outlying interest or stance, but none of them are radical. I know a large number of Republicans who are disgusted with their own party, or at least say so to anyone who listens to them. Most of the people I know who don't have well-defined beliefs are divided by intelligence. Everyone I know with average intelligence or higher knows we need to get rid of Trump, though many of them disagree about why. Everyone who has common sense knows we'd better rally around one person, rather than split the vote. I like a lot of candidates better than what we have, but the two party SYSTEM is what we have. Until we fix that antiquated notion, that IS the reality we face. 

Your potential viewing does not include a listing of Dilbert's creator.

It was on Fox in a breakroom.

[recalculates over .0000000000628 seconds] You were not a fan of the show or the host either.

Yeah, his comedy wasn't funny. His politics are even sadder.

Greg Gutfeld is your least favorite?

No, Hannity is still worse. Gutfeld is just irritating and pathetic. Hannity is stupidly overblown.

Who is your favorite?

Pundit? . . . Maddow. She finds fault with everyone where she can. She's not always on the mark, but she's clearly intelligent. She's also insightful and fun. Most of the others I listen to are too opinionated for me to listen to for five minutes without noticing bias I have to check on. Maddow might give people a pass on some stuff, but her negatives are spot on. We done? I have to sleep. Work has piled up. 

Thank you, good sleep.

Not The Monster We Need To Watch For

  

"OEOHFPPE" by Herr D on heromachine. He said no one ever believed a certain song.

[inserting chatbox into spreadsheet program to open communications with Herr D] You are overdue.

[startle reaction] Oh, you mean for a blog topic. Can you choose something easy for me to comment on?                                             The difficulties of mail-in ballots.

[laughter] Well, that's easy. There isn't any.      Explain.

You fill out a form. They send you a ballot. You mail it back.  Perhaps the difficulty is for them?

Uh. . . no? The IRS has a complete list of everyone who filed taxes. With addresses. Call me old-fashioned, but people should probably only GET to vote if they paid taxes or showed on paper why they don't have enough money to pay taxes. Examining categories--[.000000000042 seconds pass] There are other categories.

Uh . . . like?   Some show they can legally evade taxes through loopholes. Some are on parent's tax forms. Some are homeless. There is supposedly a separate issue of fraud increase.

Okay. Those uber-rich deadbeats give at least a mailing address, so they can still get a form by mail. Parents or guardians of college kids or other dependents can hand out ballots. That's not hard either. Homeless people? Some of them have PO boxes. Most of them are too poor to pay taxes. Some of them can get mail through various agencies or charitable organizations. There ARE people who handle that. And fraud increase?

Well, I don't think the military would stand by and allow the process to be too flawed. Deployed personnel have to vote by mail. Nobody wants veterans' votes not to count. They paid the biggest price for it. Anybody caught on voter fraud by mail gets tried for mail fraud AND voter fraud. It really just ups the ante against those criminal enough to try it. That do it?      Thank you.