cholesterol

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:22:36 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 5:01:02 PM UTC-7, Neon John wrote:

The lesson we can draw from this is that consensus science (sic) is
almost always wrong.

Not true at all. Science means 'knowledge and understanding'. So,
consensus knowledge and understanding, while always limited, is
rarely wrong. It's never something that we know to be wrong,
because then it wouldn't BE consensus.

It's usually wrong, until whacked sufficiently hard by experiment.

But some fields of study aren't subject to experimant. So they stay
wrong.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

On Friday, 1 November 2019 13:55:45 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 11:41:37 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 October 2019 19:24:46 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 10:46:13 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On 29 Oct 2019 01:47:40 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote...
John Larkin seems to think ...

Bill, you are becoming a very crotchety old man.

Sad case. Best to ignore him.

It's curious how so many of Bill's comments nowadays are just his
personal slant on what other posters here have said. Nearly all begin
with "X seems to believe...." or "X seems to think..." or "X's beliefs
are mistakenly based on..." It is just so weird. And hardly ever does he
contribute anything electronic-related any more. :-(

and rarely are his other-person opinions realistic. More pathological.

In NT's ever-so-expert opinion. Anybody who thinks that Cursitor Doom's opinions are ever well-founded has to be a pretty pathological case, and NT is more pathological than most - pretty much down to the krw level.

If I followed drs' advice I'd be long dead. Either I get informed or by God I pay the price. But as ever Bill wants to paint things his pathological way without getting the necessary facts. He usually comes back with some pathetic remark.


NT

 

[Neon John]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 19:03:40 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard@aol.com>
wrote:

On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 5:06:35 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:

Of course there are exceptions, but the professional consensus is
usually good to go by.

The way I learned it, "one person's opinion is statistically insignificant... especially when that person happens to be you!"

Consensus science. Let's see how that has done through the years.

In the beginning, of course, the consensus was that the earth was
flat.

Then the Greeks had a consensus that the universe was made of only 4
elements - fire, water and I forget the other two.

For hundreds of years there was the phlogiston con census about fire.

On the medical side, the con census was that blood letting and leeches
cured all sorts of diseases, not to mention the use of plants and
weeds and sugar of lead.

Movingon along, the consensus was that the atom was indivisible until
Rutherford, Walton and Cockcroft split the atom.

Aftrer that the consensus was that there were only 3 indivisible
particles (electron, neutron, proton) that made up all matter.

When the positron was discovered, the consensus was revised to 4
particles.

Then some deniers commenced to build accelerators and break up the
"fundamental particles" into sub-atomic particles.

Then we move into modern times and a con census (follow the money in
this instance) on AGM. Notice I didn't leave off the "A" as the True
Believers to in trying to convince the public that climate change is
man-mad. And just as throughout the years, the con census types call
us skeptics, AKA "show me" people names.

The lesson we can draw from this is that consensus science (sic) is
almost always wrong.

When it comes to science, I think a good synonym for "con census" is
"fool".

John
John DeArmond
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.tnduction.com
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
See website for email address

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 5:20:26 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:32:32 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 9:04:31 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

I'm an electronic design engineer. I don't need a personality.

That excuses the shoddy maintenance situation. It's a lame excuse,
personal growth is more important than a job.

It doesn't get electronics designed.

Electronic design *is* personal growth. Whining on usenet is not.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

Then why do you whine on usenet so much?

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 2:31:28 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:41:31 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

It's curious how so many of Bill's comments nowadays are just his
personal slant on what other posters here have said. Nearly all begin
with "X seems to believe...." or "X seems to think..." or "X's beliefs
are mistakenly based on..." It is just so weird. And hardly ever does
he contribute anything electronic-related any more. :-(

and rarely are his other-person opinions realistic. More pathological.

Exactly. Hence "slant."

NT and Cursitor Doom seem to think that they have the right to post bad information, and an equal right to complain about being called gullible twits when they get called on it.

This is pathological behaviour, but the kind of insight that would let them see that their own bahaviour is what's pathological here is way beyond them,

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 5:01:02 PM UTC-7, Neon John wrote:

The lesson we can draw from this is that consensus science (sic) is
almost always wrong.

Not true at all. Science means 'knowledge and understanding'. So,
consensus knowledge and understanding, while always limited, is
rarely wrong. It's never something that we know to be wrong,
because then it wouldn't BE consensus.

You've cherry-picked non-scientific antique notions, supported
by... ignorance. You did NOT establish 'almost always' statistics.
That will NOT do, we know better than to allow such notions
without supporting evidence.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 2:37:32 AM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 11:16:42 AM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
I get a Social Security check every month, for being "retired", >even though I still have a regular job. And of course I pay state >and federal income tax on both the SS payment and on my salary >and on everything else. And I (and my employer) keep making >payments into the SS system!

Then your check should go up every year.

I don't know the details, but in at least some cases it doesn't. Social Security is not a pension plan where the money you put into it is yours. Your benefits are partly set by how much you paid into the plan, but once you start taking money out that benefit is fixed. Your payment into the system is paying for others' benefits.


I am sure part of it is hereditary but part of it is what I eat.

You literally have no way of knowing this.

He could get his genome sequenced by 23andme for $99.

https://www.23andme.com/?new=true&vip=true

It won't tell him all that much about his inherited health problems right now, but they have already collected quite a few genomes and data about the health of the people who got them done, and the statistical number crunching is steadily extracting more.

We are well on the way to getting much better grasp of the nature/nuture split.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 11:01:02 AM UTC+11, Neon John wrote:

On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 19:03:40 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard@aol.com
wrote:

On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 5:06:35 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:

Of course there are exceptions, but the professional consensus is
usually good to go by.

The way I learned it, "one person's opinion is statistically insignificant... especially when that person happens to be you!"

Consensus science. Let's see how that has done through the years.

In the beginning, of course, the consensus was that the earth was
flat.

Then the Greeks had a consensus that the universe was made of only 4
elements - fire, water and I forget the other two.

For hundreds of years there was the phlogiston con census about fire.

On the medical side, the con census was that blood letting and leeches
cured all sorts of diseases, not to mention the use of plants and
weeds and sugar of lead.

Moving on along, the consensus was that the atom was indivisible until
Rutherford, Walton and Cockcroft split the atom.

Aftrer that the consensus was that there were only 3 indivisible
particles (electron, neutron, proton) that made up all matter.

When the positron was discovered, the consensus was revised to 4
particles.

Then some deniers commenced to build accelerators and break up the
"fundamental particles" into sub-atomic particles.

Then we move into modern times and a con census (follow the money in
this instance) on AGM. Notice I didn't leave off the "A" as the True
Believers do in trying to convince the public that climate change is
man-made. And just as throughout the years, the con census types call
us skeptics, AKA "show me" people names.

Anthropogenic Global Warming - AGW - not AGM.

The evidence that planet is warming up is solid. The evidence that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere - 414ppm now, up from 315ppm when we started measuring it directly in 1958, and up from 270ppm over most of the current interglacial - is doing much of it is also convincing.

The extra CO2 in the atmosphere is ours - injected by burning fossil carbon - because it has less of the unstable C-14 isotope than it used to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect

Neon John doesn't seem to able to follow any of that - he may be stupid, but he may also be a born-again right-winger, who has learned what he shouldn't pay attention to.

The lesson we can draw from this is that consensus science (sic) is
almost always wrong.

When it comes to science, I think a good synonym for "con census" is
"fool".

Neon John is the fool here. He lists a bunch of simple explanations which got replaced by better ones as the inadequacies of the simpler explanations became obvious. William of Occam spelled out the principle some time ago.

He then decides that simplest approach to anthropogenic global warming - that it isn't happening - happens to be the right one, and declares that anybody better informed is being foolish.

This isn't all that convincing. It may work for the kinds of clowns he hangs out with, and John Larkin seems to have bought the same story, but most people can do better.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 10:45:38 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, 1 November 2019 13:55:45 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 11:41:37 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 October 2019 19:24:46 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 10:46:13 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On 29 Oct 2019 01:47:40 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote...
John Larkin seems to think ...

Bill, you are becoming a very crotchety old man.

Sad case. Best to ignore him.

It's curious how so many of Bill's comments nowadays are just his
personal slant on what other posters here have said. Nearly all begin
with "X seems to believe...." or "X seems to think..." or "X's beliefs
are mistakenly based on..." It is just so weird. And hardly ever does he
contribute anything electronic-related any more. :-(

and rarely are his other-person opinions realistic. More pathological..

In NT's ever-so-expert opinion. Anybody who thinks that Cursitor Doom's opinions are ever well-founded has to be a pretty pathological case, and NT is more pathological than most - pretty much down to the krw level.

If I followed drs' advice I'd be long dead.

A doctor who got stuck with NT as patient might well give him the kind of advice that would shut him up.

> Either I get informed or by God I pay the price.

Sadly, the information you get isn't all that good. It hasn't killed you yet, but it does seem to have damaged your reasoning ability.

> But as ever Bill wants to paint things his pathological way without getting the necessary facts.

NT isn't great at producing any facts at all. Early on, he would risk posting links to what he thought constituted evidence, which were pretty much always irrelevant nonsense, but he's learned the wrong lesson from that experience and now restricts himself to idiotic pontification, of which this is a good example.

> He usually comes back with some pathetic remark.

By which he means that he can't argue with them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2019-11-02, Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

Electronic design *is* personal growth. Whining on usenet is not.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

Then why do you whine on usenet so much?

Presumably because his personality is too big already.

--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 11:51:03 AM UTC+11, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 10:45:38 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 1 November 2019 13:55:45 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 11:41:37 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 October 2019 19:24:46 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 10:46:13 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On 29 Oct 2019 01:47:40 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote...
John Larkin seems to think ...

<snip>

and rarely are his other-person opinions realistic. More pathological.

In NT's ever-so-expert opinion. Anybody who thinks that Cursitor Doom's opinions are ever well-founded has to be a pretty pathological case, and NT is more pathological than most - pretty much down to the krw level.

If I followed drs' advice I'd be long dead.

A doctor who got stuck with NT as patient might well give him the kind of advice that would shut him up.

Actually, this is being unfair to the doctor.

People who read up on medical matters for themselves - and this includes medical students and young doctors - frequently convince themselves that they've got something rare and fatal.

NT is definitely that kind of patient. His doctor probably told him not to be silly, so NT went out and found some bogus treatment, and when his symptoms went away, decided that it had cured the disease he thought that he had.

> > Either I get informed or by God I pay the price.

Having made his own mountain out of some molehill, he prides himself on the time he has wasted surviving something that was almost certainly trivial.

The price of an excessive faith on one's own infallibility can be a lot of unnecessary anxiety and pointless effort.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 16:51:07 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<curd@notformail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 01 Nov 2019 20:00:51 -0400, Neon John wrote:

The lesson we can draw from this is that consensus science (sic) is
almost always wrong.

Just as with economic forecasts, then.

It's worse that that. Macroeconomists influence policy and make the
economic system less stable. It's happening right now.





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 01 Nov 2019 20:00:51 -0400, Neon John wrote:

The lesson we can draw from this is that consensus science (sic) is
almost always wrong.

Just as with economic forecasts, then.




--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 5:26:43 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:22:36 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 5:01:02 PM UTC-7, Neon John wrote:

The lesson we can draw from this is that consensus science (sic) is
almost always wrong.

Not true at all. Science means 'knowledge and understanding'. So,
consensus knowledge and understanding, while always limited, is
rarely wrong.

It's usually wrong, until whacked sufficiently hard by experiment.

Still untrue, and because you clipped it out, my requirement of
supporting data needs to be restated: find a way to quantify
'wrong' and 'right' and compute a ratio, THEN map that
ratio for a century or two.

No analysis possible before the Reformation (no published work then
was 'consensus', it all had princes or priests' sign-off).

But some fields of study aren't subject to experimant. So they stay
wrong.

Ridiculous! That eliminates arithmetic, algebra and calculus,
none of which are subject to any findings by experiment.
Unreasonable premise, unbelievable conclusion. No one
can be so simple as to believe that.

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 9:54:59 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

It's worse that that. Macroeconomists influence policy and make the
economic system less stable. It's happening right now.

How do you define 'less stable'? The economic excursions
of yesteryear are worse than recent decades, and nothing noteworthy
is 'happening right now'. Economic news is just the usual hot air from
the usual vents.

Salutlations, vent!

 

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 5:26:43 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:22:36 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 5:01:02 PM UTC-7, Neon John wrote:

The lesson we can draw from this is that consensus science (sic) is
almost always wrong.

Not true at all. Science means 'knowledge and understanding'. So,
consensus knowledge and understanding, while always limited, is
rarely wrong.

It's usually wrong, until whacked sufficiently hard by experiment.


Still untrue, and because you clipped it out, my requirement of
supporting data needs to be restated: find a way to quantify
'wrong' and 'right' and compute a ratio, THEN map that
ratio for a century or two.

No analysis possible before the Reformation (no published work then
was 'consensus', it all had princes or priests' sign-off).

But some fields of study aren't subject to experimant. So they stay
wrong.

Ridiculous! That eliminates arithmetic, algebra and calculus,
none of which are subject to any findings by experiment.
Unreasonable premise, unbelievable conclusion. No one
can be so simple as to believe that.

Google science wrong




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 02 Nov 2019 09:54:54 -0700, jlarkin wrote:

It's worse that that. Macroeconomists influence policy and make the
economic system less stable. It's happening right now.

It's even worse than *that* though! At least the macroeconomists are
still humans at this point in time at least:

https://tinyurl.com/y44jfpjv




--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 9:46:32 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 02 Nov 2019 09:54:54 -0700, jlarkin wrote:

It's worse that that. Macroeconomists influence policy and make the
economic system less stable. It's happening right now.

It's even worse than *that* though! At least the macroeconomists are
still humans at this point in time at least:

https://tinyurl.com/y44jfpjv

ZeroHedge - Cursitor Doom is a sucker for their stories.

Currency exchange rates are a rather small and specialised market, and what's being complained about is automated dealing systems posting new offers more frequently than a human dealer could, over-loading the communications available.

This doesn't make the market unstable, any more than the macro-economic interventions that John Larkin was complaining about.

When the market us unstable, as it was in 1929 and 2008, people do notice.

When it's adjusting itself to changing economic circumstances, it does move around, but the instability is in the real world, and the market is merely reflecting that, as it is designed to.

John Larkin's approach to change is to deny that it is happening - as in his rejection of anthropogenic global warming. The business of reacting intelligently to real changes in the real world requires enough intelligence to be able to recognise these changes, and enough intelligence to reject false claims about other things that are alleged to be happening.

John Larkin may have the intelligence, but he doesn't apply it to anything outside of electronics, and he's rather parsimonious with it even there.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 5:51:41 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 5:26:43 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:22:36 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 5:01:02 PM UTC-7, Neon John wrote:

The lesson we can draw from this is that consensus science (sic) is
almost always wrong.

Not true at all. Science means 'knowledge and understanding'. So,
consensus knowledge and understanding, while always limited, is
rarely wrong.

It's usually wrong, until whacked sufficiently hard by experiment.


Still untrue, and because you clipped it out, my requirement of
supporting data needs to be restated: find a way to quantify
'wrong' and 'right' and compute a ratio, THEN map that
ratio for a century or two.

No analysis possible before the Reformation (no published work then
was 'consensus', it all had princes or priests' sign-off).

But some fields of study aren't subject to experimant. So they stay
wrong.

Ridiculous! That eliminates arithmetic, algebra and calculus,
none of which are subject to any findings by experiment.
Unreasonable premise, unbelievable conclusion. No one
can be so simple as to believe that.

Google science wrong

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before

which does spell out exactly how John Larkin misreads the evidence as a justification of his favourite fallacies.

The problem isn't with science, the problem is that John Larkin doesn't know much about science, and misunderstands what he thinks he does know.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Saturday, 2 November 2019 00:51:03 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 10:45:38 AM UTC+11, tabb wrote:
On Friday, 1 November 2019 13:55:45 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 11:41:37 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 October 2019 19:24:46 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 10:46:13 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On 29 Oct 2019 01:47:40 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote...
John Larkin seems to think ...

Bill, you are becoming a very crotchety old man.

Sad case. Best to ignore him.

It's curious how so many of Bill's comments nowadays are just his
personal slant on what other posters here have said. Nearly all begin
with "X seems to believe...." or "X seems to think..." or "X's beliefs
are mistakenly based on..." It is just so weird. And hardly ever does he
contribute anything electronic-related any more. :-(

and rarely are his other-person opinions realistic. More pathological.

In NT's ever-so-expert opinion. Anybody who thinks that Cursitor Doom's opinions are ever well-founded has to be a pretty pathological case, and NT is more pathological than most - pretty much down to the krw level.

If I followed drs' advice I'd be long dead.

A doctor who got stuck with NT as patient might well give him the kind of advice that would shut him up.

Either I get informed or by God I pay the price.

Sadly, the information you get isn't all that good. It hasn't killed you yet, but it does seem to have damaged your reasoning ability.

But as ever Bill wants to paint things his pathological way without getting the necessary facts.

NT isn't great at producing any facts at all. Early on, he would risk posting links to what he thought constituted evidence, which were pretty much always irrelevant nonsense, but he's learned the wrong lesson from that experience and now restricts himself to idiotic pontification, of which this is a good example.

He usually comes back with some pathetic remark.

By which he means that he can't argue with them.

and he did.