...you can always simply revert to the preschool level of basic colors.
I stumbled on this luscious scallop, which looked like it was made of the most scrumptious candy, but it had zero identifier. I hoped to find its name.
So, dutifully (tho by now skeptically), I clicked on the "search by image" button RIGHT next to it. Google, flummoxed as ever, quickly attempted a lame CYA in the form of
...simply default to imagination. Even if you're Google.
I was hoping to find some more photographs along this line (it's some abalone nacre)
so I consulted good old Artificial "Intelligence" (perhaps not the most intelligent thing to do, considering A."I."s stellar record {snort}). Since it evidently couldn't figure out what this was, it resorted to next best guess:
Ever since I first set foot on barnacles, I've hated the darned things: they puncture & slash your feet like you were their most egregious enemy. But recently, I found Siamese twin ones attached to a sand dollar
(which in itself is new this year: in all my decades of life, I've NEVER seen barnacles choose sand dollars as a squatting spot; not sure what that signifies), with an obvious divorce having taken place, so I wanted to understand barnacle anatomy better.
I've always viewed barnacles as perhaps 1mm up the totem pole from rocks. But then I found this schematic, which totally blew me away...and at the same time, caused a massive abs workout from guffawing. Notice how complex this creature in fact is! He's even got certain {ahem} appendages and cavities!
Here's a magnificent view of a live one:
And for a bit more mirth, watch this unbelievable snippet.
I again clicked on the "search by image" button right next to this picture (which is again a sand design):
Google could only figure it out as:
But hey, at least Google got the rhyme right!
If I have worked with a picture file in MSPaint which is later closed, but where the MSPaint screen is still up, A."I." afterwards can't tell that the file has been "tucked away." Against all reason, it stubbornly continues to insist that the file is still "in use," and then refuses to allow me to do anything with that file in the way of moving it.
Dumb artificial "intelligence" is bad enough, but rebellious dumb artificial "intelligence"?!? That really takes the cake.
I'm voting for renaming artificial "intelligence."
Struck out twice within an hour, no less!
I wanted to find more pictures like this, so I clicked on the "search by image" function RIGHT next to the image in question (which usually gives Google a clue as to what kind of image is involved).
Now, most folks would recognize this as a water and sand pattern. Not Google! Even tho the pattern is NOT pointing upward (which would make the mistake slightly more understandable), Google came up with this result:
With this picture, I did the exact same thing:
This is another water-carved sand pattern (albeit no longer underwater). Google couldn't make it out, so just tossed it into this "bin":
Yes, Google, in the broadest sense, sand is indeed a "material," but not the type you've selected here, aka "fabric."
And in the face of this kind of incompetence, there're folks who worry that computers'll take over the world?!?
[Disclaimer: Blogger is at fault for the whacky sizing below.]
RESPONSIBLE DRONE USE: While drones have not been seen over the Bluecut Fire, fire managers would like to remind the public that hobby drones, or unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), pose a major safety threat to firefighting pilots and firefighters. When a hobby drone is flown into a fire area, incident commanders have no choice but to suspend air operations and ground aircraft until the drone is removed from the area.
The authorities should have permission to shoot down a UAS in that kind of situation. I can not beLEEEEve that those things are allowed to hamper life and property saving activities!!!!!
Google's been flaunting its prowess again. I put this image of Haliotis K. Assimilis (aka a type of abalone found prolifically in the Baja area) in its image search.
Google thought it was this, ROTFL!
"There's a mathematical probability. That's what chance basically used to mean. And then it kind of got broadened a little bit and took on broader application to include any unpredictable event, any sort of probability no matter how remote, or any coincidence no matter how seemingly impossible.
But let me tell you about chance. Chance doesn't exist. It’s nothing, absolutely nothing. Chance is a word used to explain something else. But chance isn't anything. It's not a force. Chance doesn't make anything happen. Chance doesn't exist. It's only a way to explain something else. Chance didn't make you meet that person; you were going there when she was going there, that's why you met her. Chance didn't have anything to do with it because chance doesn't exist. It's nothing. But in modern Darwinism, it’s been transformed into a force of causal power. It's been elevated from being nothing to being everything. Chance makes things happen. Chance is the myth that serves to undergird the chaos view of reality.
This is so fraught with problems from a rational or philosophical viewpoint, you hardly know where to begin. How do you get the initial matter upon which chance operates? Where does that come from? You would have to say, "Well, chance made it appear." This sounds so ridiculous, and yet this is the undergirding philosophy behind Darwinism. It is completely incoherent and irrational. But the new evolutionary paradigm is chance. And it's the opposite of logic. You see, when you abandon logic and logic says, "Oh, there's a universe. Hmm. Somebody made it." What else would logic say? "There's a building, somebody made it. There's a piano, somebody made it. There's a universe, more complex than a building, infinitely more complex than a piano, somebody, somebody who is very, very powerful and very, very intelligent made it." You say, "No, no, chance made it." Listen folks, that's rational suicide, that's not logical.
Logic abandoned leaves you with myth. And the enemies of mythology are empirical data and God-given reason. So in order to be an evolutionist and believe that chance makes things happen, you have to do two things: reject the empirical data, and be irrational. But if you love your sin enough, you'll do it. You see, if you can just eliminate the empirical data, the evidence, and get rid of God-given logic---those two things are the essence of pure science---if you can get rid of those things, then mythology runs wild.
And as one writer said, "Chance is the new soft pillow for science to lie down on." Arthur Koestler said, "As long as chance rules, God is an anachronism." If chance rules, God can't rule. Chance deposes God. The very existence of chance rips God from His sovereign throne. If chance as a force exists even in the frailest form, God is ungodded...if there's such a word. The two are mutually exclusive. Either there is a God who created the universe, who sovereignly rules and sovereignly controls, or there's not. If chance exists, (philosophically) it destroys God's sovereignty. If God is not sovereign, then He's not God. If He's not God, then there is no God and chance rules. That's frightening.
But chance is not a force. Chance can't make anything happen. Chance isn't anything, it doesn't exist. It has no power to do anything, because it isn't anything. It’s impotent, because it's nothing. It has no power because it doesn't exist. Are you getting it? Since chance doesn't exist, it can't produce anything. It can't be the cause of any effect.
Yet modern evolutionists talk about chance all the time. It's just nothing but hocus-pocus. It's the oldest and most inviolable law of science, logic and reason. Any of you who ever took debate or studied any of the rational philosophers remember the statement: Ex nihilo, nihil fit; out of nothing, nothing comes. And chance is nothing. This line of reasoning is rational suicide.
So when scientists attribute instrumental power to chance, listen carefully, they have left the domain of reason, they have left the domain of science. They have turned to pulling rabbits out of hats." (source)
"On the whole, then, the supporters of Mr. Darwin’s views in 1860 were
numerically extremely insignificant. There is not the slightest doubt
that, if a general council of the Church scientific had been held at that
time, we should have been condemned by an overwhelming majority." (source)
"There's a mathematical probability. That's what chance basically used to mean. And then it kind of got broadened a little bit and took on broader application to include any unpredictable event, any sort of probability no matter how remote, or any coincidence no matter how seemingly impossible.
But let me tell you about chance. Chance doesn't exist. It’s nothing, absolutely nothing. Chance is a word used to explain something else. But chance isn't anything. It's not a force. Chance doesn't make anything happen. Chance doesn't exist. It's only a way to explain something else. Chance didn't make you meet that person; you were going there when she was going there, that's why you met her. Chance didn't have anything to do with it because chance doesn't exist. It's nothing. But in modern Darwinism, it’s been transformed into a force of causal power. It's been elevated from being nothing to being everything. Chance makes things happen. Chance is the myth that serves to undergird the chaos view of reality.
This is so fraught with problems from a rational or philosophical viewpoint, you hardly know where to begin. How do you get the initial matter upon which chance operates? Where does that come from? You would have to say, "Well, chance made it appear." This sounds so ridiculous, and yet this is the undergirding philosophy behind Darwinism. It is completely incoherent and irrational. But the new evolutionary paradigm is chance. And it's the opposite of logic. You see, when you abandon logic and logic says, "Oh, there's a universe. Hmm. Somebody made it." What else would logic say? "There's a building, somebody made it. There's a piano, somebody made it. There's a universe, more complex than a building, infinitely more complex than a piano, somebody, somebody who is very, very powerful and very, very intelligent made it." You say, "No, no, chance made it." Listen folks, that's rational suicide, that's not logical.
Logic abandoned leaves you with myth. And the enemies of mythology are empirical data and God-given reason. So in order to be an evolutionist and believe that chance makes things happen, you have to do two things: reject the empirical data, and be irrational. But if you love your sin enough, you'll do it. You see, if you can just eliminate the empirical data, the evidence, and get rid of God-given logic---those two things are the essence of pure science---if you can get rid of those things, then mythology runs wild.
And as one writer said, "Chance is the new soft pillow for science to lie down on." Arthur Koestler said, "As long as chance rules, God is an anachronism." If chance rules, God can't rule. Chance deposes God. The very existence of chance rips God from His sovereign throne. If chance as a force exists even in the frailest form, God is ungodded...if there's such a word. The two are mutually exclusive. Either there is a God who created the universe, who sovereignly rules and sovereignly controls, or there's not. If chance exists, (philosophically) it destroys God's sovereignty. If God is not sovereign, then He's not God. If He's not God, then there is no God and chance rules. That's frightening.
But chance is not a force. Chance can't make anything happen. Chance isn't anything, it doesn't exist. It has no power to do anything, because it isn't anything. It’s impotent, because it's nothing. It has no power because it doesn't exist. Are you getting it? Since chance doesn't exist, it can't produce anything. It can't be the cause of any effect.
Yet modern evolutionists talk about chance all the time. It's just nothing but hocus-pocus. It's the oldest and most inviolable law of science, logic and reason. Any of you who ever took debate or studied any of the rational philosophers remember the statement: Ex nihilo, nihil fit; out of nothing, nothing comes. And chance is nothing. This line of reasoning is rational suicide.
So when scientists attribute instrumental power to chance, listen carefully, they have left the domain of reason, they have left the domain of science. They have turned to pulling rabbits out of hats." (source)
"[Darwinism] was invented to kill the God of the Bible, not because
evolutionists and materialists and naturalists didn't like God as
creator, but because they didn't want God as judge." (source)
But this so-called "solidarity" shown by Muslims attending Roman Catholic services strikes me as suspicious. Even if the attenders are sincere in their gesture (I'm not convinced they're not paid), the fact remains that this sort of religious syncretism works perfectly in vetting people for the Great Global Gush, aka One World Religion.
The more terrorist violence, blood and gore people across the earth are exposed to (whether directly or thru the media), the more they become afraid, resulting in an eventual willingness to embrace Statism as a "solution" to all the slaughtering (there was a more localized version of this in Germany just before Hitler took power: the Bloodshirts and the Dungshirts were shooting it out on streets and in cafes and restaurants; nobody knew when or where they'd be the next dead man). People will swallow despotism whole for the sake of an illusory peace & security.
I simply do not believe that Islam's expansion is the sole reason for these attacks: even if they are indeed committed by genuine hate-filled zealots, they are being exploited by puppeteers with an even more sordid agenda, that of global idol worship.
