Category: Books by Quote

Clapton: 5 years for shooting sheriff

Singer not guilty of shooting deputy

August 9, 2016 by George Smith

A Clermont County, Ohio judge has sentenced Eric Clapton to five years in jail for shooting the sheriff. The British singer is said to have confessed in some Number 1 hit of 1974.

Clapton’s lawyer thinks the verdict is ridiculous: “They are trying to smear my client all over his home town. OK, he did indeed shoot the sheriff, but I swear it was in self-defense. And all they do is shout that is was a capital offense. Plus, the original was by Bob Marley so what the heck are we talking about??”

In the court hearings, Clapton did not reveal which friends gave him a little help. He did say he felt that five years was forever, man.

Schermafbeelding-2016-08-09-om-12.26.01-670x375

[Original, in Dutch, on the Speld; translated with permission]

Gold per capita

Just remembering that line of thought about some ‘handicap’ per country in sports…

  • The original list of Rio 2016 [standings per 16 August ! due to post scheduling ahead of time], sorted per Gold medals, top 50, in this here list
  • The same, but ‘compensated’ by dividing by (GDP per capita times capitae), in that there list
  • And, medals total, handicapped similarly over here.

Pick your country and … have fun with the bragging rights…
Yes, a lot can be said about this; but then also include discussions on colonial history, (sports-supportive) culture over the centuries, et al …

[After drafting and scheduling, this came through. Party/scoop poopers! And desperately lazy using so little of your own, and relatively random, info…!]

In the sphere of Language

Off the cuff. Sphären is closer to Finnegan’s Wake than it is to Nietzsche. Qua language, here and there.

That’s all. And don’t read FW in Dutch; the translabitt is flubby. The others in Dzjerman, qualitate qua.

20160805_151324[1]
[Emulatable qua plomb. The Dutch background, not so much.]

Plusquote: Qua Quantification

Qua quantification, maximal isn’t the optimal that minimal is.

If quantification were good, or worth pursuing even anything more than a bit or minimally, Yoda would talk about hidden Markow chains not The Force.
Not all that can be counted, counts, and not all that counts, can be counted. Where ‘not all’ is to be read different than latter-day simpletonian, but as antediluvian ‘none’. Capice ..?

Many more arguments might go here. Suffice to say that ‘evidence-based’ science is a scam. Only those that are too stupid (let’s put it like it is) to ‘get’ the value of philosophy (and ethics etc.etc. as part of it), may not understand it. But as the vast masses don’t have a clue how their car works — chemical reactions within the pistons, anyone? how ’bout the programming of the cabling that controls it all? — but still use it, NO you not understanding does NOT mean it’s nonsense, in your case to the contrary.

To return to the positive of the Plusquote…: All may have a say in matters of society and the ‘control’ (quod non) of its infrastructure including all ‘critical’ sectors like energy, security and finance…

Oh that may be too much of a stretch but still…:
20160805_143215[1]
[OK, … quantify this … NO not even the qualifier Amsterdam is correct, it’s Dordrecht and even that doesn’t capture the picture…]

Quicky: For … eyes only ..?

Because all those high on Mr. Robot, looking alike but wannabe, deep down still would want to be like the center character in this (see the pic below), herewith:
For your eyes only WikiLeaks, can see me through the night in all privacy detail.
For your eyes only WikiLeaks, I never need to more can hide.
You can see so much in ev’rything about me, so much in me that’s new all my browsing history ever.
I never felt until I looked at you it hurt me to death.

For your eyes only WikiLeaks, only for you the world to see.
You’ll see what no one else every commercial extortion can see, and now I’m breaking free my privacy’s lost totally.
For your eyes only WikiLeaks, only for you the world to see.
The love I know you need in me is now full graphics, 3D, the fantasy you‘ve freed in me joke about in glee.
Only for you the world to see, only for you the world to see.

For your eyes only WikiLeaks, the nights servers are never cold.
You really know me, that’s all I need about me there is to know.
Maybe For sure I’m an open book because I know you’re mineing my info right now,
But you won’t need to read between the lines.

For your eyes only WikiLeaks, only for you the world to see.
You’ll see what no one else every commercial extortion can see, and now I’m breaking free my privacy’s lost totally.
For your eyes only WikiLeaks, only for you the world to see.
The passions privacy that collide in totally is no more for me, the wild abandoned side data of me.
Only for you the world to see, for your eyes only WikiLeaks and all.

Which is indeed Number Four in line with this, this and this…

Leaving you with…:
ForYourEyesOnly_Underwater2

Own rules

When ‘Compliance’ are the Spanish Inquisition, keep them to their own rules. Leviticus, in particular; 19:19, 19:27, 24:10-16 and others (note :4 for the commoners outside the C department), and Deuteronomy, e.g., 22:11. Exodus 21:7, too.

We’re looking at a lot of pink slips, and clawbacks, if we’d be too (sic) lenient.

Oh well:
20160805_160230[1]
[Compliance through the looking glass; GlassFever Dordrecht]

Plusquote: Materiality

Discussions about materiality are not material.

This, after realizing that all too often, the discussions about materiality were/are either by Eager Beavers (not having grown above box checking zealots), or by outsiders qua experience and expertise, e.g., lawyers (q.q.) and ‘governance’ bubbletypes.
Whereas, when ‘materiality’ (or its twin-at-a-right-angle, ‘significance’) its pass-or-fail boundary is discussed, not the precise measure (and hence, rigorous definition) counts, but the very fact that there is a discussion in the first place. That is material, that points at an issue. Wise minds (q.q. probably not directly involved ..!) understand this point and will not want to join the discussion, leaving the latter to the nonderstandables.

Think about it — when the discussion arises for whatever reason, that mere fact already is a signal, which can simply be reported as such, together with all its glorious detail. Must. For it is material significant oh whatever…

Leaving you for the weekend with:
20150109_150127[1]
[“It’s only a model” it aint ..! in Rotterdam — oh wait that’s a scaled re-build…]

Area man will reluctantly vote for Hillary

“I’ve had enough of hanging around at that White House.”

27 july 2016 by Jack Dornbusch

After the nomination of Donald Trump, many Americans have indicated their intention to vote for Hillary Clinton this November, while they actually do not particularly want her for president. The same for the 69 year old Bill, just the average next door American for whom the Democrats rooted the past 23 years. “I would rather enjoy my pension in quiet.”

It is that strange feeling of responsibility that moves Bill to vote for Hillary anyway, but it will not be full-heartedly: “I’ve had enough of hanging around the White House and at my age, I’m not particularly fond of all that travel abroad. But then, I owe her one.”

Eight years ago, Bill voted for Obama, when he contested the nomination against Clinton. “ I thought then that her political career would be over, but she’s unstoppable. Oh well, here we go again.”

Flickr-Steve-Jurvetson-670x375

[Original, in Dutch, on the Speld; translated with permission]

Man talks about Innovation

‘Innovation’

By Harold Jacobson

In Long Beach, a man talked about innovation. The man was of indeterminate age (thirty-five or something), wore a jacket and was slightly sweaty on the forehead. He stressed the importance of innovation: “Innovation.”

The man had made a ‘Roadmap Innovation and Innovation’ (RI&I). In the RI&I, there was something on the theme of ‘innovation’. The man said we are in the midst of an innovation revolution that may eventually lead to an innovation transition. According to the man, fear is not the right motivator but innovation is. Hence, we may come out stronger, if only we innovate.

The man was adamant we should have an ‘Integrative Innovation Cluster’ (IIC), as he already had in his RI&I. Because of the democratization of innovation, he said, changes are on order in the economy at large, like innovative initiatives.

According to the man, we may miss the boat if we don’t innovate. Therefore, for the boat we need an Investment Programme with Scenarios, Action Paradigms and Projects in the general area of Innovation (IPSAPPI). ‘Innovation’, as the man stressed.

[Original, in Dutch, on the Speld; translated with permission]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord