Actually, in most situations, one percent is written with a whole number-- 1%.
The reason I could even think of representing .01 as one percent is to assume that in this instance, the whole number 1 would represent 100%. In that case, .01 is 1% of the whole number one.
Now we have to deal with the fact that someone with such a frightening concept of basic math--- is armed. I think I will sleep a little less well tonight.
OK. I spotted the problem. Smiley, you shouldn't have added the % after the .010. That % changed the entire thing, now it's not one percent, but one one hundredth of a percent.
.01= one percent.
.01% = one hundredth of a percent. That misplaced % is dynamite. Of course, if you were right in that, you'd have a situation where gun violence is so insignificant that nobody would pay attention to it.
I already have two blogs. Don't do enough with either of them to be worth the bother. I suppose if I kick my Wordpress blog a bit I might get somewhere with it though. The Vivaldi-- is a waste of space.
Plane races look awesome. Bet that would be entertaining to watch in person even without crashes.
Boat and car racing never really seemed so exciting to me. I avoid some family members during Nascar races. That's just dreadful to try and watch.
I had the great misfortune to have to overnight in Talledega just a few days before NASCAR hit town. The motels can charge whatever they like during the time just before and during the race--- and they take full advantage of it. That was last year as it happens.
When NASCAR hits town in a place like Talledega, it's PARTY TIME. No doubt of it.
F1 race cars gave up gasoline as a fuel a long time ago. These days they burn an alcohol fuel-- have for years. Straight methanol last I heard. Now, that DOES produce a smell of course, and some pollution--- but NOT the standard hydrocarbon that gasoline would produce.
All those high-tech computer controls and electronic gadgets should help the cars get better mileage and power--- which MAY someday translate into better cars on your showroom floor. Then again maybe not. But--- time will tell on that one.
Expensive? Sure. But it's not YOUR money so what's your beef? These cars are heavily sponsored (shoot, a lot of them are little more than rolling bill-boards) so corporate money is being spent on these machines.
You don't enjoy the sport? Don't watch it. Personally, I don't care for American football and will do anything to miss it when I can--- but people do enjoy the game so it's here to stay for awhile.
Unlimited hydroplane racing--- now THERE'S a sport I can get into. Watching, anyway-- no way I could afford one of those boats. Of course it shares some things in common with F1 cars--- it's furiously expensive, the tech involved will most likely never show up on any fishing-boat I could ever buy, and it's heavily sponsored. But--- I do enjoy watching the spectacle.
After posting the above, I went to look to our statistics.
Total Members: 1340 Total Posts: 45270 Total Topics: 667 Average registrations per day: 11.00 Average posts per day: 68.04
This is not so bad.
This is where numbers and statistics get mighty strange. Go back over the membership count. 1340. OK, how many of those members have actually posted anything? Take a good look and you find that most have posted nothing. Zilch. Zero. Nada. There's really only a handful of active members. So the question becomes, how do we get more ACTIVE members?
They haven't had the Iowa caucuses yet. Talk about something weird in American politics, I suspect the Iowa caucuses is about as weird as it gets. I won't pretend to explain it-- I have a suspicion folk from Iowa would be hard-put to explain it. But--- they're first. After that, New Hampshire has its primaries--- which at least are understandable in normal voting procedures. Then over a period of several weeks the rest of the states have their primaries. The conventions--- where the candidates for each party are actually chosen-- come in late July/early August of next year.
I was about to suggest lightening up on Americans. Think about it: Right now before I open DnD, I know that I can count on half a dozen posts that indicate anything said by an American is probably wrong because we're all hopelessly ignorant untraveled boobs. Why would any other Americans want to post here, given that kind of reception?
Look, I'll spell it right out: I've been on the point of leaving any number of times because I felt that my opinion is less than welcome, seeing that I'm an American.
So--- rail on evil American gun-makers? Be my guest. But don't forget about the evil gun-makers from your part of the world too. Otherwise people like me might think DnD is a Eurocentric xenophobic place that's best avoided.
RJ, it IS funny watching you criticize our education while your writing style never would have passed grammar school here. Well, at least when I was a boy--- and your photo shows that you and I are roughly in the same generation. (I don't see a teenager in that suit with the orange sash. Nope--- a considerably older man. Probably born just after WW2, but that's a rough guess.)
Let's have a few facts, shall we? Henry Vlll had 6 wives, not 7. This is what became of them.
He had to separate from the RC church to have his first marriage annulled--- the Pope wouldn't do it, so he formed his own church. Catherine of Aragon died of natural causes. Anne Boleyn died of having her head lopped off for adultery. Jane Seymour died in childbed, having given birth to the sickly Edward. Anne of Cleves was divorced, outlived the king and in fact was the last of Henry's queens to die-- natural causes. Catherine Howard had her head removed--- adultery. Catherine Parr was widowed, being his wife at the time of his demise. Her death-- natural causes.
No doubt that Henry was a piece of work. But that might be forgiven him since there seem to have been more sinners than saints in positions of power in those days. For that matter, there's an abundance of sinners in power today. In the RC church and in Protestant circles too---don't hog, there's plenty of sinners to go around.
Neither are you, Bel. Science asks questions. Science sometimes doubts the idea that "consensus" is right. Science DOESN'T try to get skeptics charged under RICO laws-- as has recently happened here in the states-- because the skeptics actually DARE to not believe the "consensus".
Science actually observes things. When what a person observes and what "consensus" tells him turn out to be two different things---well, there's a problem.
Hmmmm--- It takes a Protestant to figure this out?
OK, here goes: There is no Pope Francis 1 because they don't start putting numbers after the name until there's a second Pope by that name. Pope John Paul ll followed the short-lived Pope John Paul.
So-- he is Pope Francis. No numbers unless and until Pope Francis ll comes to the throne.
Popes come and they also go. Pope John Paul II visited here several years back--- visited Chicago as it happens, a short section of 42nd Street on the South Side is named in his honor. Changes he made in the way we live our daily lives----- Hmmmm........ Not much. After the Pope leaves and the press settles down from their fawning, life will get back to what it has been.
I don't expect the visit of Pope Francis to be significantly different. Atheists won't suddenly find God in massive numbers, Protestants won't swear off protestantism big-time to become Roman Catholic, there won't be priests and nuns on every street corner administering the affairs of state and so on.... Pope Francis will make a few speeches, eat with homeless people, smile for the cameras--- and then board a plane for home. The US will continue "business as usual" government, and a week after the Pope's visit it will be hard to tell that he was ever here.
The Pope rules the place. Total apotheosis, full subordination.
That's odd. It's not so that anybody would notice, is it?
Last time I checked, the official RC position on abortion and on gay marriage (just to bring up two examples) is that you can't be Roman Catholic and practice either of them. If the Pope did indeed rule the place, you'd expect these things would disappear. Nope. A woman can get an abortion even in the third trimester--- and even her husband can't stop her. And, recently they've made it "Law of the Land" that men can marry men, women can marry women, and transgenders (another probable abomination according to church teachings) can marry----geezzzz, they don't really know what they are so flip a coin and take a wild guess.
Soooooooo......the Pope rules. When do we start seeing the results? (Never, as it happens. Separation of church and state you know. If the Pope starts trying to mess with everybody else's applecarts, it'll go to court sure as the sun comes up in the East---and we'll find in no uncertain terms that the church doesn't rule the state.)
[…] these freak-show candidates may be good for laughs but they're terrible for getting good candidates into office.
I've not entirely given up on getting good candidates into office… But we haven't had a Ronald Reagan in a very long time! (Barry Goldwater was an early favorite of mine…) What — particularly — would keep you from voting for Donald Trump, should he get the nomination? (I'll keep my speculations to myself; and my own opinions. I just want to know what you think.)
What would keep me from voting for Trump? The guy is a freaking CLOWN, that's what. It would be hard to imagine a worse possible choice for president. If by chance he wins the Republican nomination--- that's it, they're through as a serious party.
He puts himself up as some sort of businessman-- but this is a man who managed to lose money OWNING a casino. Now that takes some doing. Look--- as a showman, he's hard to beat. As somebody you would actually want to sit in the Oval Office, as "commander in chief" and all the rest of it----- we just have to do better than Trump.
Oakdale--- you're right. My memory appears to be slipping.
Seems I remember Ralph Nader causing trouble for the Democrats. He didn't draw much more than single-digits if I remember, but in races where the difference between GWB and Al Gore (the first time around for GWB) and GWB against John Kerry were close--- the drain that Nader created just might have made the difference.
In any case---- these freak-show candidates may be good for laughs but they're terrible for getting good candidates into office.
The problem is that while The Donald may not get elected, he can do an enormous amount of damage in the run-up to not getting elected.
Remember the damage that Ross Perot managed to do to the Democrat party? Some people think that Ross Perot may have drained enough votes from the Democrat candidate that it gave the election to the Republican by default.
The Donald has the capability of doing that kind of damage to the Republicans. He could guarantee a Hillary victory just by his being in the campaign in any capacity.
I don't know whether they are legal. But I hope they are supposed to be weird, or wacky, or wonderful.
Hmmm.... Have you seen "Gay Pride" marches? You will never find a weirder or wackier event. The proponents think it's wonderful, others aren't so sure. The fact that these displays are not exactly legal in places like Russia or the Middle East only seems to add to the spectacle.
But so-called environmentalists do, frequently, urge governments to institute a "back to the Stone Age" agenda; and -at the same time- ask for more government funds!
Who? How many? What percentage does that amount to? You have screwballs in every movement.
Midnight, I gotta ask: Do you believe that the scientists who disagree with you on this subject only do so because they're taking money from the oil companies? Just for a moment, consider--- could it be possible that their observations just don't match the "consensus" line and they're saying so?
I say again--- if everybody who dares to disagree with "you" (in quotation marks because now this applies to everybody, myself included) is ignorant, in cahoots with the cartels or otherwise needs to shut up---- then this discussion ceases to have useful purpose. It is no longer about science, but about intolerant religious views. It may need to be shut down.
You ex-colonists still haven't grown up politically or sensibly at all. You just can't take it when you cannot control a company or get your corporate money lot into a place to make a profit. Fascinating how those in nutjobland who are bright have diatribes but quick to label others.
Pot calling the kettle black much? It's kinda funny, because all you seem to do here is rag on everybody else. America is your favorite whipping-boy of course, but seriously-- I don't think I've seen you say much good about anybody outside of Glasgow-- or Moscow of late.
Every now and then something crosses my transom that makes me wonder if we're dealing with science--- or religion. Specifically, the kind of religion that burns heretics at the stake. The link below, which describes a group of warmist scientists who want to have all skeptics arrested and tried under the RICO act, is such an item that makes you wonder.
(Barry Goldwater was an early favorite of mine…)
