Lee Sang-Ho LOST to Zan Kosir

This article raises several very good questions:

  1.  Why did the S. Korean flag appear beneath Lee Sang-Ho well before the Slovenian flag appear beneath Zan Kosir?
  2. Did the premature appearance of the S. Korean flag (or the delayed appearance of the Slovenian flag) affect the judges’ ruling?
  3. Was there electronic timing being used on the course?  If so, what did the timing claim?
  4. Given the fact that the video clearly shows Zan Kosir crossing the finish line first, with both board and hand over the line when neither Lee Sang-Ho’s hand nor his board had reached the line, why did the judges decide in favor of Lee Sang-Ho?
  5. Given the video, why was the electronic timing not examined immediately afterwards?
  6. Why has this obvious mistake on the part of the judges not been called into question at the highest level???

If Lee Sang-Ho or S. Korea has any honor, they will concede defeat and ask the IOC to redistribute the medals.


Nikolas Cruz – Another Mass Shooting

Despite the fact that an article entitled, “Antidepressants Are A Prescription for Mass Shootings” first appeared in November of 2012, five years ago, as part of CCHR* Florida’s efforts, now we have a shooter, Nikolas Cruz, with a 7-year history of calls to 911, FBI involvement, and repeated evaluations by licensed therapists, all of whom deemed him not to be a threat.  Here’s another salient article.

The fact they were all wrong is undeniable.

I’m a data/systems analyst. In 2012, shortly after the Newton shooting, I located, downloaded, and began analyzing a very detailed set of data on mass shootings between 1981 and 2011. That’s 30 years of mass shootings.

There are only two substantial conclusions one can draw from the data:

1. Even the best psychological practitioners cannot successfully identify everyone who might prove harmful to themselves and others. Many mass shooters had been evaluated by psychologists or trained/licensed therapists who failed to identify them as a threat. Deeming everyone who passes through their doors as a threat, however, is not the answer. Less than 1 out of 10,000 subjects evaluated for potential harm, yet dismissed as non-harmful, ever go on to engage in a mass shooting. You cannot deprive the other 9,999 (actually, a lot more) of their own rights.

2. So-called “gun-free” zones occupy less than 10% of the physical space frequented by the general public, yet are where more than 80% of all mass shootings occur. In fact, more than one mass shooter has confessed they targeted a gun-free zone precisely because it was a gun-free zone so as to minimize the likelihood anyone would be armed and could shoot back.

Based upon the indisputable facts communicated by the objective data itself, along with 27 years of military and civilian education and experience in the use of firearms, here are my recommendations:

1. Stop designating areas as “gun-free” zones. Not only is that a wide open invitation to mass shooters, but it also denies the lawful general public their Constitutional right to defend themselves. Given the undeniably clear data and findings, the so-called “gun-free” zones are pathetically stupid. Stop designating zones as “gun-free.”

2. For areas where you really do not want firearms, such as K-12 schools, courtrooms and prisons, authorities bear the responsibility of protecting those who must be there. Secure the physical facility from unauthorized entry. Employ well-trained armed guards to stop unlawful armed intruders. Single point of access. Controlled entry. We do a very good job of this with courtrooms and prisons. Some municipalities do a very good job of this with schools. Take heed. Learn. Do. Protect our kids.

3. For more adult areas like malls and movie theaters, stop preventing law-abiding adults from defending themselves. Law-abiding citizens use firearms somewhere between 650,000 to 800,000 times each and every year to defend themselves against violent crime, usually without having to fire a shot. I’ve been involved in three such incidents. No shots fired, but the attack was stopped. In fact, because armed, law-abiding citizens are not cops, they invariably hold their fire until it becomes absolutely necessary to stop the attack. Error rates are only 2% for armed citizens, but 11% for law enforcement officers. Thus, disarming law abiding citizens is pathetically stupid.

4. Don’t touch the current psychological evaluation programs in place. Although it’s not an exact science, they do a very good job, with a very low error rate, in terms of identifying those who are a threat to themselves and others.  Trying to monkey with that from a legislative perspective would be a pathetically foolish thing to do.

5. Stop politicizing the issue. It’s not Trump’s fault. It’s not Hillary’s or Obama’s fault. It’s not the fault of Democrats or Republicans. In fact, most of the “solutions” proposed by politicians would greatly exacerbate the issue. Stop it. Knock it off. Do the research and find out what really works. Limits on magazines? Caliber? Number of guns one can buy during any given time period? Absolutely none of these foolhardy measures has ever stopped a single mass shooting. What HAS stopped mass shootings is when either a law-abiding citizen or law enforcement officer at the scene SHOT the mass shooter before they could continue. Securing places where people who must attend are disarmed, like students in schools, is the best way to deter such shootings in the first place.

6. Stop the blitheringly idiotic headlines. Mainstream media bears a huge responsibility to print the truth, instead of sensationalism like, “No other country has these types of…” Phooey. I can name thirty countries off the top of my head where such shootings are far worse than they are here in the United States of America.  Fact-checking is a basic yet critical responsibility of all journalists.  Those who fail to check their facts make the problem much worse.

7. Investigate the relation between mass shootings and psychoactive drugs. When a mother of four on psychoactive drugs drowns all four kids in a bathtub as her very first indication she has any violent tendencies, it’s a statistical anomaly. When similar events, including mass shootings, are repeated thousands of times over thirty years, you’ve got a real problem, and the drugs are highly suspect.

Yes, mass shootings are a tragedy. Let’s not create further tragedy by resorting to knee-jerk gun control that has not nor will ever stop mass shootings and is likely to make them much worse by progressively disarming law-abiding citizens who can and do protect themselves and others.  Instead, let’s secure certain facilities and respect the rights of all citizens to defend themselves in accordance with our Constitution.

*Citizens Commission on Human Rights

Solving the Problems of Traffic Congestion

Yes, I’m a really smart guy.  No, I’m not a traffic engineer.  I have, however, conducted extensive studies involving both aerial and seaport throughput and transloading operations for the United States military.  You don’t even get to do that unless you’e a pretty smart guy (or gal), so someone thought I had enough smarts and experience to put me in a serious position of responsibility where I’d gain a whole lot more knowledge and experience.

I will comment extensively on these at a later date.  For now, they serve as placeholders:

  1.  A very good, science-based look at the fundamental physics of traffic:  https://jliszka.github.io/2013/10/01/how-traffic-actually-works.html
  2. An incredibly non-scientific and decidedly ass-backwards look at what drives traffic congestion:  https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
  3. U.S. Department of Transportation’s The Seven Sources of Highway Congestion and Unreliable Travel:  https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report/chapter2.htm

Bottom line:  While many state legislators are busy with legislation based on the mind-turds I call “articles found in Wired Magazine,” others prefer to source from decades of exquisite science that, if use properly, can greatly alleviate traffic congestion on America’s highways while costing just pennies on the dollar as compared to adding more lanes.  Keep in mind, however, there’s a point where minimizing causing factors while facilitating throughput will have reached its peak, and adding just one more car to the road will precipitate the traffic wave that cuts throughout in half.

Traffic Wave Experiment:

More Detailed Analysis of the experiment above:

 

Traffic Waves, Explained in Detail, including how variable speed limits and actually slower speeds can mitigate the appearance of traffic waves:

What the Liberals are saying about President Trump’s Tax Cuts Plan

I recently spotted a typical liberal response to President Trump’s Tax Plan:
“I have an MBA, and these tax cuts will have little to no effect on the economy.” – Jess*

Well, Jess,* I have two degrees in business, two degrees in science, and two degrees from which I graduated summa cum laude, one of which is my own MBA, so with all due respect, I’ll see your MBA, raise you two science degrees and two SCLs, and recommend you spend more time studying economics.

I see Ivanka Trump graduated cum laude with a bachelor’s degree in economics in 2004. Do you she that might have some input into President Trump’s tax plan?  I’ll bet she did.  I’m also willing to bet that both of them knew enough not to solely trust their education and experience, but instead solicited input from dozens of top experts in a variety of fields.

Perhaps it was on the advice of the Reagan-era policies of Milton Friedman, who held a PhD in Economics from Columbia University, and was a Fulbright Visiting Fellow at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, whose “tax cuts increase the economy” advice to President Reagan absolutely resulted in both tax cuts as well as the resulting strong economy throughout the 1980s and well into the 1990s.

That may not mean much to you, but this and tons of repeating history very strongly confirm that President Trump’s tax cuts are precisely the right move. Indeed, the economic jumped yet again after the bill passed, a very strong indication it’s the right thing for our economy.

*Not his real name.  Names have been changed to protect the innocent.

Origin of the Term “Bomb Cyclone”

The term “bomb cyclone” is not listed in AFH 11-203V1 or V2, “Weather for Aircrews,” a three-week course taught to all military aviators in the United States Air Force.  The volumes comprise 234 and 85 pages, for a total of 319 pages of detailed meteorology.  It includes tons of references to cyclone, cyclones, and cyclonic activity, but not a word about “bomb cyclone” or “cyclone bomb,” “cyclonic bomb,” “bombogenesis,” or other variations.
 
So I checked an exhaustive online weather glossary. Zero. Zip. Nada.
 
And then I found the origin: “John Gyakum, along with the revered late Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorologist Fred Sanders, first coined the term in a paper they published in 1980. They used the phrase to describe powerful cyclones that get their energy from rapid drops in pressure caused by hot and cold temperatures colliding.”
Here’s the link to the American Meteorological Society’s Abstract for the paper, and here’s the link to the paper itself.  And here’s the citation:
Gyakum, J. R. and Sanders, F.  (1980).  Synoptic-dynamic climatology of the “Bomb.”  Department of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institution of Technology.  Retrieved from:  http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493%281980%29108%3C1589%3ASDCOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
 
This term, however, while coined by two researchers from MIT, was never widely adopted in the annals of mainstream meteorology.  Furthermore, Gyakum stopped using it shortly after 9/11 for obvious reasons.  Sanders passed away in 2006.
 

As of January 4, 2018, the term “bomb cyclone” as swept through the corridors of mudstream media like wildfire, even though it was never

January 2018 Hurricane
(click to enlarge)

officially adopted as a weather term.  Technically, it’s still just a cyclone (tropical depression), although it appears as if NOAA is caiming it has developed hurricane-force winds near its center.

Even so, tons of publications ranging from Time to Forbes, Popular Science, Fortune, and more have all put out articles about its origins. Fortune gets it right: “Technically, the term bomb cyclone comes from the scientific term “bombogenesis,” which is a storm that drops 24 millibars of pressure over 24 hours.”  Well, it sort of gets it right, as the term “bombogenesis” never appeared in the original paper.

There’s a difference between normal cyclonic development and a bomb, best explained by this quote from NBC News’ Science:  “Hurricane Sandy was a monster, but not a bomb since it was forecast with extraordinary accuracy a week ahead. A meteorological bomb, on the other hand, develops at a frightening pace — with the atmospheric pressure dropping a millibar or more per hour for at least 24 hours.” – NBC News

The problem with this is that the term was never used by mainstream meteorologists and just randomly popped up even though it’s surviving creator said he’s not using it any more.

Thus, I think some idiot from mudstream media re-coined it without knowing its origin, and only after it gained traction did the many outlets of mudstream media try to legitimize it by tying it back to an obscure research paper from 1980.  I found a few references to various forms of it used by local meteorologists over the years, dating back to 2007.

Regardless, the threat is real.  Despite its appearance in January, well past the end of hurricane season, it still has all the earmarks of a hurricane, including high winds and massive precipitation.  In fact, due to the extreme cold, instead of falling as many inches of rain, that precipitation will fall as many feet of snow.

As of 4:00 AM on January 4, 2018, it’s center was abeam North Carolina, but by 3:00 PM, it had moved rapidly north, so that it’s currently abeam Nantucket.  Furthermore, although it is rapidly pulling polar air from Canada, sweeping it through the Eastern Seaboard,  it appears to be far enough out to sea that it’s not “bombing” the area with snow.  Nantucket is currently reporting 13 inches of snow, with another 3 inches per hour for several hours.  Three feet of snow would be a lot, but it’s not uncommon in that area, and it’s certainly not ten feet.

Do Police Shoot Blacks More Often Than Whites?

Do Police Shoot Blacks More Often Than Whites?  Yet another blithering idiot at Newsweek seems to think so.  However, whatever journalism school the author(s) of this drivel attended, it failed to teach them proper statistics. The Washington Post published a better study, one with correct numbers, which I’ve referenced here, and which is even mentioned in the Newsweek article, and which I’ve cross-referenced with known U.S. demographics.

Killed by Police in 2017:
White – 456 (47%)
Black – 221 (23%)
Hispanic – 179 (18%)
Other – 43 (4%)
Unknown – 77 (8%)
Total – 976 (100%)

True, blacks comprise only 13% of the U.S. population. 12.61%, to be precise. Yet 22.64% of people killed by Police in 2017 were black. Thus, blacks are being killed at a rate 79.59% greater than their prevalence in the U.S. population, whereas whites are being killed at a rate 36.52% less than their prevalence in the U.S. population.

It’s true that around 13 per cent of Americans are black, according to the latest estimates from the US Census Bureau.

And yes, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black offenders committed 52 per cent of homicides recorded in the data between 1980 and 2008. Only 45 per cent of the offenders were white.

Thus, these numbers shouldn’t be “troubling” at all. If one race is disproportionally more likely to commit a crime, then they are disproportionally more likely to be confronted, arrested, incarcerated, resist arrest, and shot, as well.

The question is whether or not the abundance of black shootings is equivalent to the abundance of black crime?

And the answer is that is matches almost exactly. Blacks commit 186.49% more crime per capita (per person) than whites. Blacks are shot 179.59% more often than whites.

If anything, the data shows that blacks are 6.91% — nearly 7% — LESS likely to be shot by police during or after committing a crime than are whites!

Thus, the answer to the question is, NO, police do NOT shoot blacks more often than they shoot whites.  In fact, they shoot both black criminals and white criminals with nearly the same frequency.  It’s just that blacks are nearly twice as likely (79.59% more likely) to commit crimes than are whites.

THAT’S a FACT, ladies and gentlemen. Thus, claims like, “Black people are three times as likely to be killed by police as white people” are BOGUS claims, “reports” by people who do NOT know how to properly use statistics. In fact, the statistics themselves clearly show the “report titled “Mapping Police Violence” that was released Thursday” is grossly in error.

Sadly, so many hate groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter will probably latch onto that report as their gospel and start killing even more whites.

Education is important! It helps you to be able to discriminate between high quality information and bogus journalism, like this piece written by Josh Saul of Newsweek and published on December 29, 2017. By “totally bogus,” I mean it’s TOTALLY bogus, not worth the electrons it’s printed on.

Winter Survival Kit – Car

Everyone needs a small survival kit for their car, and enough for the driver and all possible passengers:
 
2 liter bottle of water (don’t leave the water in the car!)
2 MREs – the food and water will provide most of the heat you need
2 space blankets or a space blanket tube
sleeping bag
med kit, including any vital medications you require
knife
hand-axe
portable saw
550 cord
defensive tool (gun, taser, mace — whatever you feel is appropriate)
tinder (small jar full of vaseline-soaked cotton balls)
hat and glove (unless you carry them with you)
half a dozen tea lights
2 BIC lighters
strikeable flint
small bag of kitty litter
tow rope (10,000 lb)
booster (battery) cables
flashlight with SOS function and lithium batteries (they tolerate the cold below 0 deg F)
spare batteries for the flashlight
cell phone with a car charger (always keep it inside your jacket to keep it warm)
 
As for clothes, you need to wear enough that you can walk a mile in whatever weather you’re driving without any significant degradation in temperature or health. That includes any fleece pants and wind/water-proof shells you need to protect yourselves from the elements.