brokenbone

2 minutes ago, BestB said:

Now you just making up bs just for the sake of it

 

Dept and perception tests are not to determine your eyesight but your reaction.

 

If you do not understand that, perhaps you should not be driving at all

your logic is failing, how on earth is the depth perception

test a reaction test when there is no specified time constraint ?

6 minutes ago, BestB said:

perhaps you confused between eyesight test and perception test.

 

So yes precisely, which one is it? they do check for what you call sharpness or they do not?

its both, as i stated in the first instance,

and even specified with smaller and smaller text,

and the depth perception test with a pin on a rail, respectively.

 

now with that sorted out, can you elaborate on

how you first claim color test was the only eyesight text,

and in following post you contradict that statement

by saying they test depth perception also ?

im guessing memory are slipping with age, how old are you ?

3 minutes ago, BestB said:

In your previous post you stated they check for sharpness as in smaller and smaller text, now you state they check for depth.

 

So which one is it? Yes they check for depth, only hardly ever look if you got it right and if you did not, they make you do it again and again until you get it right.

 

Just as reaction test which a lot of people fail, they do it again and again until they get it or get it close enough.

 

1 week ago, they did not even do the reaction test and for colorblind instead of using the chart, now have mini traffic lights, 

 

For perception, mine were aligned to start with, did not even need to move it

i stated both, and in previous post you stated

" never tested nor saw or heard of anyone else being tested for eyesight besides color blind test "

but now you say they did test depth perception,

so which one is it ?

17 minutes ago, BestB said:

No they do not. in 20 years i was never tested nor saw or heard of anyone else being tested for eyesight besides color blind test

but when i went to dlt 1.5 years ago they did,

its a pin on a rail and you have to scroll that pin to line

up with two other objects to the sides depth wise,

this require both eyes functioning or you wont get

proper distance, lest you figured out

how to roll with the head like an

owl to get the depth right.

this is also why carnivores have their

eyes facing front to judge depth right,

apes did evolve this way to get a proper

distance measurement to the next branch

its going to take an awful lot of time for surrounding

nations to semi catch up, and for sure im going to be dead

if and when cambodia ever catches up somewhat.

agree thai economy is doing exceptionally well,

its overall not cheaper here then home now.

still warm here tho, and i find thais as social and easy going as ever, but have to note with displeasure

that the young A rated lasses doesnt even register me

on their radar

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

it's all about staying in a big beauty destroying concrete box and getting a sun tan, with a lot of drinking and displays of local dancing tarted up for the tourists.

 

reminds me of an interview with billy idol

when the reporter stated the industry was all about sex and drugs, to which he replied: horrible isnt it ? ????

10 hours ago, BestB said:

Funny thing is DLT does not check if you blind or must wear glasses , they only check if you colourblind as if one would not know top is red and bottom is green.

 

but good on rider for ignoring his disability and living life to the full just as for passenger for understanding , sharing and helping instead of throwing a hissy fit . 

no, they check both color, sharpness as in smaller and smaller text, and depth perception, as in needing 2 eyes

to get depth correct on the pin they scroll back and forth,

tho the control of the test isnt quite up to snuff,

ie all others in the room are allowed to give assistance during the tests.

i also nodded they have a reaction test,

i cant recall that in my home country

i think overall the traffic is ok today,

the theory test is adequate.

there is the random red light crossing & lotsa double parking,

but compared to how it was just a decade ago,

its almost heaven

 

31 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Frankly, I am fascinated by how so many people believe the hysteria about climate change despite so many times the same climate change cult's predictions haven't come true. They're 0 for 41.

 

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

 

And we're supposed to keep believing the same people who have been caught manipulating data again and again after being caught in so many other lies?

 

And the people who doubt the rantings and dire warnings of the constant liars are the "deniers"????

 

Wow.

its sad that NASA of all people jumped on this bandwagon,

it used to be a respected entity.

i predict '97% scientists approve' will become a verb

in the future, and this junk science is casting a dark shadow on science and scientists, and our entire generation

as imbecilic, they are ridiculing science for the sake of

getting more funding, there is zero dignity and ethics in it

 

edit: here, take a look at cook and

the half a dozen enthusiasts

chatting on how to create this consensus

project

http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The Consensus Project/2012-02-27-Official TCP Guidelines (all discussion of grey areas, disputed papers, clarifications goes here).html

33 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You could always provide a link to the source of images you post.

 

Why don’t you do that?!

god only know how many pages on this topic i have plowed through, it would be as much of a workload for me as for you to google it all over again

1 hour ago, rabas said:

What you say I evaded was precisely my point.

 

Which was, man's use of fossil fuels increasing CO₂ may end or at least moderate current ice age glaciations.(freeze ups)

 

Your proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period

Work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.[8] The amount of heat trapping (greenhouse) gases being emitted into Earth's Oceans and atmosphere may delay the next glacial period by an additional 50,000 years.

 

but if you look at the trend of the milankovitch cycles,

it sure looks like we are now at the peak of warmth,

and it will plummet in a few thousands of years

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Even more unattributed ripped content.

 

Please provide a link to where you got these images.

you could always google milankovitch cycles,

temperature through history

1 hour ago, pegman said:

97% of  actively publishing climate scientists agree that there is man made climate change but fools on here know better. Can't trust those smart educated types I guess. 

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

no, NASA is parroting an imbecile called john cook,

its amazing NASA is so sloppy as to just referring

to this ozzie on a topic that touches science,

cause cook has no clue at all how to make

a meaningful statistic, or are just trolling.

 

 

here is john discussing with fellow enthusiasts

on their blog when they came up with the theory of 97% approve TM

[[John Cook] When I read an abstract like this:

Spatial And Temporal Projected Distribution Of Four Crop Plants In Egypt

... It is projected that there will be increased air temperature throughout all four seasons in the coming 100 years, from the southern towards the northern parts of Egypt...

We can be confident that this statement is based on the fact of AGW. So is it not appropriate to rate it as 'implicit endorsement'? Not all 'predictions of future warming' tip over the line into endorsement but the stronger the prediction, the more the likelihood of implicit endorsement, methinks.]

http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The Consensus Project/2012-02-27-Official TCP Guidelines (all discussion of grey areas, disputed papers, clarifications goes here).html

 

and here is the abstract, that, do note, does not mention

co2 or man as cause of the expected temperature increase

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2008.00205.x

its kindergarten drivel behind the 97% consensus,

in the abstracts they 'investigated' was among other

entirely irrelevant stuff like 'white males',

im embarrassed to be rated the same specie as these

imbeciles, and how NASA can refer to this 'statistic' is unbelievable.

 

here is some evaluation of john cooks drivel

that the rumor of 97% scientists approve TM comes from

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/29/a-psychologists-scathing-review-of-john-cooks-97-consensus-nonsensus-paper/

http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97

someone that bothered to actually go through the abstracts concluded

less then 1% actually wrote co2

or otherwise man made was behind earth warming and rising sea levels

 

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s not what I asked you.

 

I asked:

 

 

You referred to these, now let’s have your explanation of what they are and evidence they are happening?

yes, have a wild guess what " Worsening periodic freeze ups "

might refer to ?

surely it cant be the reoccurring ice ages

can it ? and if it is, its due to the orbit around the sun somehow directly

influence co2 levels due to some

kind of attraction to co2,

...and then temperature follows co2,

or issit the other way around ?

blasphemy i say

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That might be something to do with genetics.

eco-anxiety is a serious condition requiring treatment

34 minutes ago, Sujo said:

You guys still going on about this.

 

The UN gathered the best climate scientists in the world. They investigated all the evidence and made their decision. 

 

The science is settled and no amount of posturing from pundits on here will change that.

err, how about two of the chief reviewers

in their respective field in that ipcc report that got ignored

and voted down cause their expertise didnt 

fit ipcc agenda ?

from 12 min where they vent their displeasure

that ipcc ignored the experts and wrote the opposite

in the report

and here from 58 min, note how the cheeky sods

in ipcc still insist and pretend that the scientists

are behind the report.

 

scientists are upset they are silenced

to further ipcc agenda, and yet ipcc pretend

their report is based on the very same scientists that

told them their rap was junk

 

 

2 hours ago, lopburi3 said:

So did you make a claim?  I have never had a missing item not made good by Ebay/Aliexpress/Lazada/Shopee seller or platform.

i was going to, but got informed that it could take up to half

a year to get it, now i think its too late.

aliexpress did refund me tho

2 minutes ago, lopburi3 said:

They are also available on ebay.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Large-Toe-Nail-Clipper-Heavy-Duty-Professional-Thick-Toenail-Clippers-Z/264493320448?hash=item3d9507c900:g:fosAAOSwx2hdU394

i already bought one on amazon/ebay/whatever it was,

i paid the money but never saw a product,

that is half a year ago now

On 10/17/2019 at 3:53 PM, Jingthing said:

Well if you're still looking, I had already told you where to find them in Marina Mall and don't understand why you didn't simply follow those directions.

 

Anyway I was there last night and I can report the item you want is IN STOCK and I can now give you even better directions.

 

Mall -- Marina Mall

Store -- KOMONOYA (Japanese chain, small cute items)

Only location in town

Location in Mall -- 

Directly across from the area between OWN DAYS OPTICAL and BOOTS

You can't miss it, but apparently you did last time.

In the store --

Enter and walk straight in.

You will see Aisle 4.

The item is on the right hand side of Aisle 4.

The English label of the item is Steel Nail Clipper, Straight Type. 

It is large. It's exactly what you wanted.

 

Enjoy. 

thanks jt, i will print it out for next time i make an attempt

On 10/11/2019 at 11:10 AM, Airbagwill said:

but everyone else is? You really need to apply a bit of skepticality and look at the big picture

no, not everyone else is, hardly anyone believe in the junk science beside those with eco-anxiety condition.

the scientific consensus project was never to

interview 100 or more scientists and make statistic out of that, it was a a few enthusiastic amateurs

that googled "global climate change"

and read abstracts of anything that came up on google,

and then they were discussing in between them

if it should be flagged as "agree/ agree nit noi, not agree, etc......and then concluded based on their subjective

feeling if an abstract supported their opinion that co2

causes global warming.

 

i saw NASA was referring to the consensus,

so i looked it up, it turns out an ozzie named john cook

wanted to be creative, i can tell you point blank he has no clue how to make an objective statistic, none, nada, zilch.

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

 

here is john discussing with fellow enthusiasts

on their blog when they came up with the theory of 97% approve TM

 

John Cook john@skepticalscience... 130.102.158.12

When I read an abstract like this: Spatial And Temporal Projected Distribution Of Four Crop Plants In Egypt ... It is projected that there will be increased air temperature throughout all four seasons in the coming 100 years, from the southern towards the northern parts of Egypt... We can be confident that this statement is based on the fact of AGW. So is it not appropriate to rate it as 'implicit endorsement'? Not all 'predictions of future warming' tip over the line into endorsement but the stronger the prediction, the more the likelihood of implicit endorsement, methinks.

 

http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The Consensus Project/2012-02-27-Official TCP Guidelines (all discussion of grey areas, disputed papers, clarifications goes here).html

 

and here is the abstract, that, do note, does not mention

co2 or man as cause of the expected temperature increase

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2008.00205.x

 

its kindergarten drivel behind the 97% consensus,

in the abstracts they 'investigated' was among other

entirely irrelevant stuff like 'white males',

im embarrassed to be rated the same specie as these

imbeciles, and how NASA can refer to this 'statistic' is unbelievable.

 

here is some evaluation of john cooks drivel

that the rumor of 97% scientists approve TM comes from

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/29/a-psychologists-scathing-review-of-john-cooks-97-consensus-nonsensus-paper/

http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97

 

someone that bothered to actually go through the abstracts concluded

less then 1% actually wrote co2

or otherwise man made was behind earth warming and rising sea levels

 

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Try repeating that term in front of a black person, and see where it gets you. It's a pity I can't sell tickets.

you arent even american, why would you use the classifier 'black' ?

12 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Are you being sarcastic - or are you a mindless follower of some religious corporation whose God tells you who you can have sex with?  5555

no, just common sense with experience,

i know for a fact we arent dimensioned to cross breed. replace god with nature and you are spot on, nature rules out cross breeding

3 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Horse and rabbit are not the same species. 5555

Race is associated with biology, whereas ethnicity is associated with culture. In biology, races are genetically distinct populations within the same species; they typically have relatively minor morphological and genetic differences.

you will run into the same issue if you try to cross breed

a pet cat with a lion, keep the races clean and separated

1 minute ago, Skallywag said:

Biologically "natures intent" mandates we have sex and procreate with other races. So just the opposite

Survival of the species depends on it.  

 

yeah, breed a horse with a rabbit and see how its hummin along