Member Info for adoubleuk

Tantalum,

"The operator is imaginary - the conclusions are real.
Mathematics doesn't lie. Mathematicians might!"

Ah, but to quote Hamlet, "thereby lies the rub". (Or 'therein', or 'there', depending which version of the script you're perusing. Or trying to memorise.)

Your first phrase 'the operator is imaginary -the conclusions are real' falls flat on its face if dissected by philosophical 'formal logic' as a tool, rather than 'mathematical reasoning'.

If the 'operator' is 'imaginary' (and let's be completely firm about that expression 'imaginary'. In other words, an 'image' used to express 'something' not quite pinned-down), it may be true or false.

And personally, (pure IMHO etc..) if there is doubt about truth and falsehood, I tend to believe it may be false! (Except when up against good poker players, of course.)

So. If the 'operator' is doubtful (either true or false), one cannot conclude that the 'outcome' is true. Nor (even worse) 'real'.

It remains conjecture. Or even worse, a completely subjective assumption, based upon the individual's perceptions.

Jiffy,

A highly recommended thing to watch.

That guy had an angel watching out for him. His own account is (to my mind) even more interesting than the movie.

Divers are special.

Oh! And while on the subject of angels, and if 'Reverandy' has occasional email (doubtful), how are the Picos?

I'm the other end of the chain, in Catalonia, but the view of the mountains while on the road just brought a smile of pure delight to my face. We live on a picturesque planet.

Oh.

And I've just realised.

'The driver'.

You're a 'newbie' here, compared with myself who has the unfortunate habit of boring the tin-fittings off everyone else because of my long messages.

But (just before turning in for the night) I realised your posting pseudonym is interesting, so here's a little (utterly true) story.

This afternoon I had a short (87km) journey to make, from Lloret de Mar to Figueras where I'm now holed-up, 100 metres from the Salvador Dali museum which I'll visit tomorrow before doing the remaining 687km back home, 90% of which is motorway.

But about 85% of today's little 'trot' was motorway as well, but Spanish motorways are 'interesting', because Spanish truckdrivers seem to be half-asleep at the wheel, and for some reason when they're in the middle lane overtaking another truck, have a tendency to give 'wide berth' and wander into the outside...

Which is 'interesting' if one happens to be in the outside lane oneself, and going a bit faster.

This happened to me about 5km north of Gerona. 'Thedriver' wandered left just as I was coming past his blindspot around the tractor's rear axles. And with about two inches between me and the central guardrail (thank goodness for four-wheel-drive) I got past, but it 'flipped' my passenger-sidemirror closed against the tractor's cabin.

And I hope it left a scratch on his paintwork which his boss will make him pay for.

Happily my old L322 still works, the electric button 'unflipped' my mirror, and I don't care if it's got another scratch on the plastic. Just one of many....

OK. enough O/T. Tomorrow (or rather later today) back to stockmarket / oilwell drilling stuff. Though not expecting any 'news', really.

Thedriver,

"Well you must have a big piggy bank."

And that, Sir, is absolutely none of your business.

Except that the size of my piggy-bank is quite probably a lot smaller than you imagine.

Not broke, though, and no debts.

Waiting for June 3rd, neverthless.

Thedriver,

"Double I take it you trousered a big fat pension from your time in the oil industry?"

That's an incredibly personal question, and one which I feel no actual requirement to answer, but I live my life as an Honest Man (hopefully) so I will.

And the answer is No.

No pension, no Health Insurance, no State Aid, no nothing.

I live on the money I've saved, my poker winnings (when that happens), and by occasionally trading my investments right.

Free as the wind, unafraid of death.

bartlebobton,

"your talking about "J" notation.... A level maths guys should have come across it and any Electronic Engineers would know it, upside down and inside out...."

Which goes in its own funny way to support my own assertation posted earlier on that the statement 'maths doesn't lie' is nothing other than conjecture.

Somehow the electronics stuff seems to, especially Johnson amplifiers. (Oh, and Marshall as well. And Crown. And NAD.) Except when you run 'em too hard or they fall off the truck, or someone sets fire to 'em,but that's empirical stuff.

Whereas when the maths stops working, the mathematicians create a new 'concept' so that their 'structure' still appears sound. Which to my mind is like adding an extra pawn to a chessboard.

themarl,

"back to work people brent up over 3% over the weekend"

Work? What's that when it's at home?

Except a week playing poker in Spain has given me backache. Could I maybe claim that insurance as a 'work injury'?

This weekend's O/T has been beautiful, and thanks to you fellow-posters for the fun. I knew the thing about the 'rope round the world', but the square root of one (or minus one) got me scratching my head and searching into the old memory-banks a bit.

I hope you've all had a fantastic bank-holiday weekend. I've certainly got a smile on my face. Late checkout from the hotel in Lloret de Mar (for which I wasn't charged extra), on the road at high speed to Figueras, beautiful weather and views of the mountains, the Grateful Dead at full volume on the stereo, life just couldn't be better.

With FoiL RNS anticipated for June 3rd.

Oh, and this is for Albi1 to continue her education...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo3NTMYtggo

Hadn't seen / listened to it before, but every concert was different. And I have now done so, through a pair of 'made in China' headphones bought from a shop across the street for 8 euros. And the bass-response is better than the Bose things I forgetfully left at home.

Thank you, Kerogen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IyRNKleyyg

That's what this week is going to be all about!

DC,

"yuyus

you have convinced me,

You are unreal"

If that's the case, who was I chatting with on the phone the other night?

Now I'm worried.

PS Please replace the word 'belief' in my earlier post by the word 'assertation'.

GapingFracture,

"Seriously strughling with it despite the fact that maths dont lie."

That 'maths doesn't lie' is only a 'fact' if you like to believe it to be true.

My own belief is that 'maths doesn't lie' is pure conjecture.

Unfortunately this LSE BB's word allowance isn't infinite, so there's not enough space for you to prove my belief to be incorrect...

PS

ajbjaysus,

I stand corrected about the osmosis/diffusion thing though.

ajbjasus,

Thank you for teaching me (your figurative grandmother) how to suck (figurative) eggs. But I do know what the term 'organic chemistry' means.

However, although you're quite correct about the composition of bones (ie the skeleton) being largely proteins and carbohydrates, etc., the'mineral' side of things isn't just calcium (as you cunningly allude), but Calcium CARBONATE. In other words, the vertibrates 'contain' 'stored' carbon, whereas invertibrates don't.

Chikungfunk,

"Hi Aduk ... just for you."

No, that's for everyone! A lovely little article. I was rather aware of the 'biomass imbalances' involved, but the graphics really illustrate them staggeringly well.

Unfortunately it doesn't answer the debate about whether at any instant in time the 'envelope' comprising a human being contains more carbon, proportional to mass, than that of an amoeba.

But I will continue to contend that it does, unless someone here can come up with some data proving my conjecture incorrect. If nothing else, it's a good O/T topic with which to pass the weekend!

Many thanks for the link.

Jiffy,

"I concur/agree with your viewpoint,one humongous Scam."

Thank you for your support.

However, what's taxing my brain most (other than the fact I've been playing poker for fourteen hours and have just got back to my hotel) is the post that 'ajbjasus sent here saying that (in reply to an earlier post of mine) an amoeba has (percentage-wise) the same 'carbon footprint' as a human, despite being uni-cellular and posessing no skeleton (obviously).

Over a frugal and hurried breakfast before trotting the 800 yards to the casino, I did a quick google-search about amoebas, just to refresh my memory from 'O Level Biology', because amoebas are not things I often think about.

And I still contest that person's assertation.

I'm sorry, but my understanding now is that an amoeba gets rid of carbon atoms as fast as it can in the form of carbon dioxide, via osmosis through its cell-wall. Rather than retaining it in things like bones.

Of course, by 'excreting' carbon dioxide, our microscopic little fellow-creatures must be contributing to 'global warming', so maybe they should be exterminated. I wonder if Greenpeace has considered this? Though it might be a difficult task to achieve.

In fact,although I'm a very irreligeous person, if an 'afterlife' exists, I wouldn't mind coming back as an amoeba. Their sexual ploclivities are interesting, to say the least, and they don't have to bother about income tax or Brexit or all the other stuff which makes life a pain.

But on the flipside, I doubt that an amoeba gets the pleasure of listening to rock music at high volumes, getting involved in motorsport, nor the fun of owning Hurricane Energy shares.

In a further 'reply post', JayKay1 said "This place is a little more highbrow than most LSE BBs", which I think is quite true.

Let's face it, it's the weekend, LSE moderators are graciously oblivious to O/T on this BB about weird subjects, so I'd like to see other opinions about this thorny subject.

Who has the bigger 'carbon footprint', percentage-wise? An Amoeba or a Human?

We could even take it a bit further. Because the number of Amoebas on the planet exceed that of Humans by incredible orders of magnitude.

So who's running this show?

JayKay,

"The point would be who is loosing money by not at least trying to reduce their carbon emissions?"

The answer, I thik, is blatently obvious.

The proles who believe the hype.

My money remains in oil, but also sometimes in Lithium, a fairly essential commodity which helps to power the things which help to spread the hype...

Jiffy,

"Sorry, but I am wholly against the whole concept of Carbon Credits. "

Just having got back from a quite disatrous 11 hours' poker playing on the Med coast, and thus feeling somewhat glum, I logged in here, and picked upon this phrase immediately.

And I entirely agree with you.

'Carbon Credits'? What an utterly absurd concept it is. Paople seem to forget that the human being is essentially a carbon-based lifeform. Unlike amoebas, for instance, which don't posess a skeleton.

Will I accrue 'dredits' and stop breathing, for instance, so as to not exhale Carbon Dioxide? Maybe, but I don't reckon such credits will do me much good by then, as I'll be six foot under and not caring, my putrifying corpse turning into all sorts of nasty things, a lot of which will be methane, the most dangerous 'greenhouse gas' around.

Of course, the 'biological machine' which serves to keep the thing I like to think of as 'me' mobile, and able to drive 'myself' to the Spanish coast to play poker could be burned, instead. (What I wish, as cheaply as possible.) Where does it go? Up in smoke, of course.

When I was young, even pre eleven -plus, I was fortunate enough to have received what I consider to have been 'good' education. And one of the earliest things we were taught in 'science classes' was what was called the 'carbon cycle'.

In O/T discussions here many moons ago I mentioned one of my alltime favorite books. It's called 'The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch' by the late great Philip K. Dick.

You can probably pick up a secondhand battered copy off ebay for a couple of euros.

If you do so, then re-consider the 'global warming' scam.

You're being had.

yuyus,

Amongst your assorted questions:

"For those in the know. Offloading Dummy Run !, will they cease production ?"

It's only conjecture here that there will be a 'dummy run'. But no, why should they shut down? Production isn't shut down when doing a 'real' offload.

Fta Genghis.

It is a totally clear sky tonight at Lloret de Mar, and despite not being copletely sober (celebrating poker winnings and raising the same glass to the HUR SP today), it is definitely Mars to be seen on the right hand side of the Moon.

Mr B,

I stand humbly corrected.

SG2,

"; i guess i'm not alone thinking that resolution of the Iranian, Venezualan and Libyan production issues over the next couple of years (??) will surpress poo to the $60-70 range"

That's one heck of a tall order, and one which personally I don't see being fulfilled within ten years, let alone two.

The three cases are different, but share a common thread: political / economic instabitlity.

Iranian oil output (exports to the outside world) are currently limited by external sanctions. They could ramp back up to previous levels or exceed them if that factor were to disappear.

Libya's oil exports are currently mainly hampered by damage caused by what is in all honesty best described as civil war. Sort that out, and (OPEC quotas allowing), production / exports could rebuild rapidly.

The big problem with Venezuala is now internal infrastructure falling into disrepair. The oilfields, refineries, plus supply routes themselves. Even if the IMF waved a magic wand and US plus other countries' oil companies re-allowed full access, this would take a lot of time and investment to repair.

I don't know by what means you feel these 'issues' might be 'resolved' within a couple of years, quite honestly. Unless it's by significant external military intervention, which would possibly increase the oil supply 'crunch' yet more.

The above points are mere personal opinion, though, and should be treated as such. They may seem pessimistic and cynical, but I've found that by holding such an outlook on world affairs, one's rarely disappointed by the way things actually pan out. And wars don't solve the inconsistencies of human nature, they merely illustrate them.