Chip with simple program for Toy

[Bill Sloman]

On Apr 30, 2:48 pm, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:37:09 GMT, Chiron

chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 03:41:55 -0700,BillSlomanwrote:
Almost right. We've been monitoring accurately enough for long enough to
know that the smaller long term trend is persistent and real.

Really?  Where did you learn this (cite or link or something)?

There are good non-specialist science publications that have
been covering this issue from day one, as part of their
normal coverage of all science news.  Two of my favorites
are:

Science News <www.sciencenews.org> (bi-weekly)

New Scientist <www.newscientist.com> (weekly)

My wife and I have had a subscription to New Scientist for more than
twenty years now. We read it from cover to cover. It isn't perfect,
but it's well worth the money.

I used to subscribe to the Scientific American, but dropped it a few
years ago. It's not what it was.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Apr 30, 11:39 pm, Chiron
<chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:42:31 -0700,BillSlomanwrote:

Bill, it is evident that you are not understanding what I'm saying.  I
don't know whether this is because you're not getting it, or whether I'm
being unclear.  If it's on me, then I apologize; if it's on you, I can of
course do nothing.

But I don't see much point in continuing this exchange, because we are
actually talking about two entirely different subjects.

You want to claim that the great American public doesn't know enough
to usefully informed about anthropogenic global warming and what we
ought to do about it.

I think that you are being too pessimistic

I'm convinced that they could be usefully informed if the denialist
propaganda machine didn't keep on feeding them artfully packaged and
presented mis-information. The strategy - worked out for the tobacco
companies - is to swamp the legitimate information from the scientific
community with lots of pseudo-science which is dressed up to look like
the real stuff but tells a series of rather different stories. It's
depressingly effective.

There ought to be an antidote - perhaps a few prosecutions for fraud
would do the trick if some prosecutor got quixotic enough - but nobody
has found it yet.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Chiron]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:46:07 -0700, Bill Sloman wrote:

I used to subscribe to the Scientific American, but dropped it a few
years ago. It's not what it was.

Scientific American should be renamed "Sci. Lite" or something. I think
it's trying to boost its circulation by dumbing down the science so that
the average American can understand it. They've succeeded. This is not
necessarily a good thing.

I've always turned away from Science News and New Science because of the
price. Perhaps I need to reconsider, since there appear to be few other
options.

--
Faith is under the left nipple.
-- Martin Luther

 

[Jamie]

Chiron wrote:

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:46:07 -0700, Bill Sloman wrote:


I used to subscribe to the Scientific American, but dropped it a few
years ago. It's not what it was.


Scientific American should be renamed "Sci. Lite" or something. I think
it's trying to boost its circulation by dumbing down the science so that
the average American can understand it. They've succeeded. This is not
necessarily a good thing.

I've always turned away from Science News and New Science because of the
price. Perhaps I need to reconsider, since there appear to be few other
options.

Society has become mentally lazy.

The advent of computers, cell phones, high end video devices along with
games, have made the public a very subservient creatures to the eyes of
the governments.

It used to be the fear of god, now it's the fear of no toys..


Jamie

 

[Winston]

Jim Thompson wrote:

(...)

That might work, Ed. I was pondering the same thing, but using paper towels,
so as to change them out rapidly. I do have a heat gun (for shrink tubing)
that spits out respectable heat.

Think 'coefficient of coupling'.

The heat gun is just gonna smoke the top of the towels.
It takes a flat iron to push watts through the towels to
melt the wax, IMHO.

--Winston

 

[Bob Masta]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:48:01 GMT, N0Spam@daqarta.com (Bob
Masta) wrote:

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:37:09 GMT, Chiron
chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 03:41:55 -0700, Bill Sloman wrote:

Almost right. We've been monitoring accurately enough for long enough to
know that the smaller long term trend is persistent and real.

Really? Where did you learn this (cite or link or something)?

There are good non-specialist science publications that have
been covering this issue from day one, as part of their
normal coverage of all science news. Two of my favorites
are:

Science News <www.sciencenews.org> (bi-weekly)

New Scientist <www.newscientist.com> (weekly)

snip

On the topic of AGW in the media, this bit of historical
perspective may be of interest:

Many years ago, after AGW science first started getting
attention from mainstream media, Skeptical Inquirer and
Free Inquiry (secular humanist magazine) seemed to have
surprisingly harsh criticism. Surprising because the
publisher of both magazines was about as liberal as they
come, yet on this topic he seemed to be on the same page
as Big Oil and the conservatives.

At that point in time, the science was pretty well nailed
down. The publisher was a Real Smart Cookie, so what was
going on here? I think it was that, as a humanist, he
had unbridled confidence in human ingenuity, in man's
ability to overcome any obstacle to the progress and
betterment of mankind. He probably chafed at the idea
that our soaring aspirations might be limited by
something as seemingly trivial as basic chemistry and
physics, and a few paltry degrees of temperature rise.

However, as the years went by and the science became
overwhelming, the critical articles slowed to a trickle
and stopped. Now you are more likely to see articles
critical of the pseudoscience of the deniers.

Things change, including humans and their views of
reality...

Best regards,





Bob Masta

DAQARTA v6.02
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
Science with your sound card!

 

[Les Cargill]

Bob Masta wrote:

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:48:01 GMT, N0Spam@daqarta.com (Bob
Masta) wrote:

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:37:09 GMT, Chiron
chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 03:41:55 -0700, Bill Sloman wrote:

Almost right. We've been monitoring accurately enough for long enough to
know that the smaller long term trend is persistent and real.

Really? Where did you learn this (cite or link or something)?

There are good non-specialist science publications that have
been covering this issue from day one, as part of their
normal coverage of all science news. Two of my favorites
are:

Science News<www.sciencenews.org> (bi-weekly)

New Scientist<www.newscientist.com> (weekly)

snip

On the topic of AGW in the media, this bit of historical
perspective may be of interest:

Many years ago, after AGW science first started getting
attention from mainstream media, Skeptical Inquirer and
Free Inquiry (secular humanist magazine) seemed to have
surprisingly harsh criticism. Surprising because the
publisher of both magazines was about as liberal as they
come, yet on this topic he seemed to be on the same page
as Big Oil and the conservatives.

There is a way of looking at hydrocarbons as *having replaced
human slavery*. That seems a highly Liberal thing.

At that point in time, the science was pretty well nailed
down. The publisher was a Real Smart Cookie, so what was
going on here? I think it was that, as a humanist, he
had unbridled confidence in human ingenuity, in man's
ability to overcome any obstacle to the progress and
betterment of mankind. He probably chafed at the idea
that our soaring aspirations might be limited by
something as seemingly trivial as basic chemistry and
physics, and a few paltry degrees of temperature rise.

However, as the years went by and the science became
overwhelming, the critical articles slowed to a trickle
and stopped. Now you are more likely to see articles
critical of the pseudoscience of the deniers.

Was this process simply a wearing down, or was
there material presented that was a game changer?

I don't like consensus views that depend on a wearing down...

Things change, including humans and their views of
reality...

Best regards,





Bob Masta

DAQARTA v6.02
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
Science with your sound card!

--
Les Cargill

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 06:51:41 GMT, Chiron
<chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2012 15:41:24 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
because my health failed. I spent my life savings over three years and
went hungry for a while, before I filed. No one was going to hire
anyone in my condition, and the VA approved my disability so fast that
no one could believe it. The letter granting disability stated that it
was obvious that I would never be able to work again. Do you really
think that I want to scrape by on $1021 a month, instead of being able
to work? You should try it sometime, before you spout off. Then you can
see what it's like to go without anything more than the basics. Hoping
that a 15 year old truck will run for a few more years. Spending a lot
of time changing dressings on two year old wounds and needing medical
care that you can't afford. How would you like blood, puss and plasma
running down your legs daily, for years? Doctors telling you that 'You
aren't old enough to have that problem' when you've coped with it for a
decade, or more.

I'll second that. The way some people say it, you'd think we're living
in the lap of luxury, doing drugs and booze just waiting for our next
check so we can go to Europe or buy a yacht or something. Trust me on
this, no one's getting rich on disability.

But some *are* doing drugs and booze (and gambling), and...

I spend half my pension on rent, leaving me with precious little for
luxuries such as food. The only way I could afford to take drugs would
be for me to sell them, which would probably generate enough income where
I wouldn't have to be on disability in the first place. I can't even
afford the drugs I'm *supposed* to be taking, far less any I'm not
supposed to take.

When I want to have a good time, I save up my money and blow it on a wild
spree at Starbucks. Just living la vida loca, that's me...

In the meantime I get to listen to all those experts telling me how I'm a
useless drain on society, too lazy to work, blah, blah, blah. I worked
for nearly fifty years and paid into the system I'm "draining." For a
good thirty of those years, doctors were encouraging me to go on
disability. I didn't feel it was the "right" thing to do, so I kept
trying to work.

Strawman

The problem is that people get a very biased view of what's going on.
Guys like me and Michael don't make the news. It's the occasional
welfare fraud, the "octomoms" who get all the attention, giving people
the impression that everyone receiving benefits is a leech. That's
simply not true. But you never learn this from the news. The only way
to really understand is to go through the experience yourself - and by
the time that happens, it's too late. No one listens to you because
you're one of "them" - another leech.

More stramen. Those are the people who need to be cut off, for our good as
well as theirs.

I wouldn't wish this life on anyone, but I do wish the people who so
easily dismiss us as being parasites would somehow have their eyes opened
to the reality of what it's like. Michael and I are not the exceptions.
Most of us are like this. The frauds are rare.

Ok, why didn't you prepare for retirement?

This is not a life anyone would choose. I am grateful that my basic
needs are taken care of. I can eat, I have a roof over my head, and I
can sometimes get the medicine I need. It's better than nothing. But
it's not a great lifestyle.

 

[fungus]

On Thursday, May 3, 2012 7:15:17 PM UTC+2, (unknown) wrote:

It seems to be mounted directly to a heat sink if I remember right,
and if it *has* to be mounted on a heat sink that would be a big
problem.

It WILL need a heat sink, guaranteed.

But if it could be mounted on an extending piece of metal
even if it has to be perforated or whatever, it seems it
could then be put through the reflector and positioned
wherever it needs to be. It would take some thought and
work to make such an adaptor, but then the fixture would
be good to go again using a lot less power

OTOH a lot of the big LEDs use standard
desktop PC CPU coolers from. You might
be able to use one with a long heat pipe
or even one of the liquid coolers which
take the heat away to a heat exchanger
through a rubber hose (which can basically
be as long as you want).

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Throw every light we've got on the runway!"

I guess I picked the wrong week to quit incandescence.
And don't call me Shirley!

Surely, I didn't.

 

[Ramsman]

On 05/05/2012 15:32, Fred Abse wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2012 13:23:11 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Throw every light we've got on the runway!"

I guess I picked the wrong week to quit incandescence.

Let's face it - If you've gotta glow, you've gotta glow!

And don't call me Shirley!

--
Peter

 

On Friday, June 1, 2012 12:12:31 AM UTC-5, Chairman Meow wrote:

On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:35:32 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


I also fired an AR15 using various ammo types... what a marvelous
instrument... I could shoot a liberal at 300 yards and put it right
between their eyes...

You could get arrested for remarks like that too.

Just thought I'd mention that since "folks'" sensibilities have gotten
pretty convoluted these past 20 years.

When you make a remark like that, you should qualify it with something
like "when and if all hell breaks loose this December 21st.

It still would not get you off, however. That remark was a bad one.

Just so you know, I am not a "liberal" by any measure.

I am 66+ yrs and it amazes me how liberals turn to ultra-conservatives in their old age!
Age related dementia? There is definitely some paranoia involvement.

 

On Friday, June 1, 2012 6:39:56 AM UTC-5, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Jun 1, 6:32 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@gmail.com> wrote:

The statistics tell a different story. In any event, having a gun in
the makes it appreciably more likely that you or one of your nearest
and dearest, will make a successful suicide attempt. You are much more
likely to lose your life in that way than you are to be threatened in
some kind of home-invasion. Both risks are small, but the home
invasion risk is a lot smaller.


Bill Sloman, Nijmegen


What a bunch of crap. There may be a correlation between having a gun
and having a successful suicide. But correlation does not mean there
is a cause and effect. Sloman's bias and lack of understanding
statistics shows here. There is a book " Freakonomics " that talks
about the real statistics of gun ownership. Swimming pools are much
more likely to result in death than guns.

Dan

We often read that which supports our own views. We are all flawed.
I'm more like the grasshopper than the ant...

 

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 9:59:18 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:

You are a deluded, hopeless, dumb fuck! Maybe the CIA will find your ass!

 

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 4:06:21 PM UTC-5, chiron613 wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:02:39 -0700
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

snip

Chicago just scares me for some reason. On the drive from Sacramento
to Toronto and back, we just scooted through Chicago as quickly as we
could, and spent the night in Des Moines, IA. =)

You should be scared. Last weekend's South Chicago shooting score: 11
dead, 50 wounded, all black-versus-black, so no media coverage.

Obama seeks to divide the country to the benefit of his reelection, by
playing those "bad" whites against the "working-class" blacks, so
coverage of Zimmerman-Martin: every 15 minutes.

...Jim Thompson

Oh, BULLSHIT. This has been going on for decades, long before Obama
was even born. What a load of scapegoating. Obama isn't responsible
for the mess we're in, any more than I am. You may hate liberals and
want to blame all your problems on them, but the fact is there is no
simple cause (and thus no simple solution) to our problems. The more
you try to blame it on a single factor, the less you're ever going to
see any kind of solution.

And you think Obama's got control of the media? Not so. The media is
big business, motivated by profits and not by reality or truth or
fairness. It panders to what the public wants to hear, period. Obama
has nothing to do with it. If the public wanted to hear about Obama's
sins, the media would gladly comply.


--
Place me on a BUFFER counter while you BELITTLE several BELLHOPS in the
Trianon Room!! Let me one of your SUBSIDIARIES!

Sign me up...I'm with this guy!

 

OK, you got me. It's "*WHERE* ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." My bad. It's by Thomas Gray.

http://www.dictionary-quotes.com/where-ignorance-is-bliss-tis-folly-to-be-wise-thomas-gray/

 

On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 11:40:13 PM UTC-5, Nunya wrote:

On Jun 5, 8:14 pm, chiron613 <chiron...@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 18:52:36 -0400

DUMBFUCK613 said:

Well, "when ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."

You'll never catch up with reality. With you, instead of "It's full
of stars..."
one says "He's full of shit..." The other difference is that you
retarded film
gets a 1

and 2001 got a 10.

Filter that, jackass.

Hmm... you're even worse at proper quoting than I am. You're obviously trying to quote:

"Two men look out the same prison bars; one sees mud and the other stars.” by Frederick Langbridge. Neither one was "full" of anything.

I always had problems with this quote, though. I mean,they're both in prison, stars or mud notwithstanding.

Have a nice day.

 

[chiron613]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 07:18:23 -0700
Fred Abse <excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:49:13 -0500, chiron613 wrote:

In the business (at least here in Chicago) they're simply known as
"whores" - Plaintiff's whores, and Defendant's whores.

Well, it is the world's oldest profession, slightly pre-dating
lia^H^Hawyers ;-)

As they say - whore today, gon tomorrow...

--
I was born in a Hostess Cupcake factory before the sexual revolution!

 

[fungus]

On Monday, July 16, 2012 7:33:28 AM UTC+2, Greegor wrote:

...proprietary cartridge scam.

I'd like to see the whole ink/toner proprietary
supplies scam come to a halt.

If you print a lot then it's worth
spending more on a 'professional'
printer.

The printer costs more to buy but
the supplies work out much cheaper.
You'll save money in the long run.

100x better idea: Get a color laser,
they're so much less hassle and you
waste *far* less (no 'head cleaning').

When you have to have photos on paper
(does anybody still do that?) then go
to the print shop. They'll do it much
better than an Inkjet.

Standardized cartridges that are designed to
be refilled would cut down on massive waste
in landfills, both for the machines and the supply
cartridges.

The 'pro' ink cartridges usually
hold a lot more ink so you use less
of them.

You're in saying there should be
standard cartridges but that's never
going to happen. Customers choose
printers based on initial purchase
price, not long term cost. The whole
printer business is all about selling
printers with half-full ink cartridges
as cheaply as possible (at a loss if
necessary) then making the profit on
the ink.

 

[Tom Biasi]

On 7/16/2012 4:48 AM, fungus wrote:

On Monday, July 16, 2012 7:33:28 AM UTC+2, Greegor wrote:
The whole printer business is all about selling printers with
half-full ink cartridges as cheaply as possible (at a loss if
necessary) then making the profit on the ink.

We called that the "razor blade model" You may know why.