Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The Existence of a "United States of America" (Score 1) 55

by Jane Q. Public (#47444197) Attached to: NSA Says Snowden Emails Exempt From Public Disclosure

America no longer has distributed agriculture or fuel production. A revolution, however warranted, would lead to an unimaginable amount of freezing and starvation within the first two winters, I'd wager.

And yet, in Thomas Jefferson's view, would be well worth the cost, and is far more than an order of magnitude (in years) overdue.

Comment: Re:Does anyone oppose this? (Score 1) 68

by Jane Q. Public (#47444171) Attached to: Fighting Climate Change With Trade

Eliminating market inefficiencies in a way that benefits the environment seems like something everyone could find a reason to support. Reply to This Share

Except that these aren't "market inefficiencies".

Tariffs exist for real reasons. For example: the solar industry in China is heavily government-subsidized. So by removing any tariffs, the government would allow them to compete on the "free" market (which really isn't) against other companies in the U.S. and Europe that aren't so heavily subsidized.

When government is subsidizing your industry, it's isn't a real "market". And therefore this does not represent "market inefficiencies".

Make no mistake: there is no "free trade" in this "free trade" agreement. It amounts to pouring buckets of money into China that could go to otherwise profitable companies elsewhere.

Comment: Re:very cool (Score 1) 127

Why are so many companies incompetent at just shutting up and taking my money!

What I think is funny is that this is a classic example of a good patent: a "Why didn't I think of that?" kind of thing. Because despite the implications in the article, this ain't "rocket science" all all. They just took the well-known concepts behind any decent heatsink and reversed them.

Comment: Re:Free space (Score 1) 52

This also ignores the fact that once a phone is fully encrypted, Android does not support un-encrypting it. Believe me, I know. I encrypted my phone and the only way to un-encrypt it, even according to the experts, was to do a restore from a bit-by-bit "nandroid" backup from before the encryption.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 428

I would just like to point out one more thing about your post:

It demonstrates, quite clearly, the obsession you have had about me, by the depth to which you have tried to research my actions. And also the depths to which you will sink in order to try to make your assumed findings a problem in my social life.

If that isn't evidence of mal intent, I don't know what is.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 428

Haha. No reasonable person (and I have spoken to a few) believe that AC was not you. From all appearances, that is just another aspect of your unethical behavior, and you're trying to parade it as evidence in your favor.

I've said it already, but you seem to have a problem with this: your own actions have destroyed your own credibility. It wasn't me. It was you.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 428

Holy fuck again. You are arguing about something that has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I said.

NOW you're arguing against things I did not say years ago. WTF?

You're quoting YOURSELF about things you THOUGHT I said (and we have been over that before) YEARS AGO???

Are you for real? I have asked one attorney and he has referred me to another. So far, that is the truth.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 428

I am going to quote you ]so that there is no way you can pretend you didn't say it:

I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias.

I don't think you know what "pathological" means, and I don't think you appreciate the HISTORICAL, TIME-HONORED tradition of using a psuedomym. Your problem with that is entirely your own and most people do not share it. Hint: that means it's your issue, dude. Deal with it. You don't get to make it a problem for other people.

I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias.

Excuse me? Have you even once shown me to make an argument about AGW that was "a lie" (i.e., something I knew to be false)? NO? I mean really, NO? Then what is this all about? (Suggestion: not what you say it is.)

I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. You're behaving in exactly the same way.

Um, HUH? This makes no sense. I haven't made any "pathological lies". WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS, AND YOU LOST. Where is your failure to understand? It isn't mine, and it isn't right or honest -- or possibly even legal -- that you are trying again to make it my problem.

Yes, indeed! It is going to be interesting to see who is spreading "civilization-paralyzing misinformation". But in the meantime, you don't get to define "misinformation" to be whatever offends your ego. As much as I hate to say it, hat's what courts are for.

I will point out where you have worked to make it ambiguous: you have claimed (just above) that I have spread "misinformation", when in fact, while I have been wrong at times, I have always made a great effotr to make arguments that were fact-based. I might not have always succeeded, but I did better than you. I make no more claim than that right now, but you should pay attention.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 428

The next obvious google search showed that in 2009 Jane Q. Public asked about the "money siphon system" scam a few hours before Lonny Eachus bought into it. Those are the only posts Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus left on that forum. They both disappeared after those posts, presumably by ambiguous coincidence.


Are you for real???

Not only do you demonstrate IGNORANCE of the fact that what you bring up is a SPAM marketing email probably sent to millions, you (illogically) conclude that SOMEBODY ELSE using the "Jane Q. Public" pseudomym was ME, you THEN suggest that someone else responded to the sme spam email sent to millions was ME?

I am beginning to understand where that "97%" claim came from: PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T THE SLIGHTEST FUCKING CLUE HOW STATISTICS ACTUALLY WORK.

You can CHOOSE whether you belong to that group, or shut up. Your choice.

Hint, Mr. clueless dude: these spam messages go out en masse, and they hit hundreds of thousands of people, sometimes millions, AND Jane Q. Public is a pretty GODDAMNED common pseudonym, which is one of the 2 reasons I chose it in the first place.

So I say again: For the sake of all that is reasonable, give up your obsessive quest. The fact that I am forced to describe it that way should be a clue to a person who is at least trying to be reasonable. And your attempt to say I am one of millions, MANY OF WHOM USE THE SAME NAME, is nothing short of ridiculous.


Have a nice day. You worked hard for it. And thanks for the win.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 428

No, it constitutes proof that in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to

You still don't get it. This is where your logic fails (as it so often has): even if I did link to that file, here is all it REALLY "proves":

1) Someone (myself or a friend or even just someone I know) posted a file for me that I later linked to for YOUR viewing (I remember the context of the circumstances and you were being your usual [my opinion] asshole self). Who that was is ambiguous. Possibly I am a friend of this person, which is WHY I asked him to post the file. This is a rather obvious explanation I have given you several times, but you have refused to even consider it.

2) Point out again where I have denied any such thing. You keep lying about this, then falsely accusing ME of lies when I point it out.

3) (In association with 2): the whole thing is a loaded question. I have no way of answering it honestly because the very question is worded such that in order to answer at all, I must admit to one or more of your fantasies. Score: You: 0

And I will add 4) why does anybody on this earth, except you, care about something that even if it went the way you say it did (which is false) care? ONLY you. Not me. Not anybody else. Except maybe a court of law. You have a weird obsession and it's FAR PAST time you went away.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 428

No, the links I've provided link to the things I assert. Again, in 2012

Well, I am happy that those things link to the things you want, but they aren't evidence of the things you SAY. Again, simple logic escapes you.

I am going to repeat that I am replying only in self-defense in public; otherwise I wouldn't give a damn about your fantasies. What you don't seem to realize is that even if what you linked to were actually some kind of actual, deliberate act of my own, it would only constitute an implication of an opinion. Again, you fail to understand the difference between reality and opinion, or even worse in this case: an implication of an opinion. This is a rather large failure, as I have been trying to tell you for several years now.

Quotes I may (or may not have) made about other people are their words, and I am not responsible for making them.

ALL evidence says you just don't get it. I honestly don't know whether it is your ego that won't let you get it, or some other reason, but you clearly don't get it. You have been doing all the things you have accused others of doing, and apparently even imagining they are doing.

That's called fantasy. And in my honest opinion, based on your real actions, I am beginning to think it's dangerous fantasy.


Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 428

First, the links you have provided (as so often has happened) have not linked to the things you assert.

Second, why again are you posting this in reply to a comment about something completely different?

You are cementing the fact that your whole set of rants is not about science, not about professionalism, not about what other people actually SAID, but about your ego and sense of offense at minor implications.

I'm not going to make accusations about your personality but some rather obvious categories come to mind.

And your refusal to give it up after you have been shown to be wrong lends yet more evidence.

I told you long ago that you should have given it up when you had a chance. By now it is far too late.

Comment: Re:Why in America? (Score 1) 152

by Jane Q. Public (#47440695) Attached to: Amazon Seeks US Exemption To Test Delivery Drones

The last part is your opinion, but the actual rule doesn't put it that way. For example:

And all of this is completely irrelevant to the point I originally made, which is that the regulations you cite don't make a damned bit of difference if Congress didn't give regulatory agencies the authority to make them. That was the whole issue here. It wasn't about what the regulations say. It was about whether FAA (and others, if applicable) have any authority to make them at all about anything other than person-carrying vehicles in the navigable airways. (That was the way the judge put it, more or less.)

Refreshed by a brief blackout, I got to my feet and went next door. -- Martin Amis, _Money_