Conical inductors--still $10!...

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 7:07:56 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 11:29:55 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 5:06:29 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has this paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/06/23/2006048117.full.pdf

Apparently if you spend time spelling out what exponential growth really means, even conservatives become more willing to take social distancing seriously.

It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who is really resistant to having things spelled out for him, and wouldn\'t work for Trump, who hasn\'t got a long enough attention span to let him absorb the message.

Another of your crap cites from the Sycophants. No such conclusions can be drawn from their phony research.

In your opinion. Nobody seems to have asked you to peer-review the paper when it was first submitted to PNAS.

Their phony work was based on a weak survey on MTurk, and it does not comply with any existing standards for psychological research.

As if you would know what they were. Or could even point to place where they were codified.

They mention it right there in that paper. Do you even read this stuff???

There is a link to https://osf.io/xjwbg/ but that\'s just a link to more of the same.

There is a reference to Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie,Ethisches Handeln in der psychologischen Forschung: Empfehlungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie für Forschendeund Ethikkommissionen, (Hogrefe, Göttingen, Germany, 2018)

but that\'s just about the ethics, as you\'d have been able to work out if you could read German.

> You get a grade of \'F\' for attention to detail.

As assessed by you, who doesn\'t seem to know what he\'s talking about.

Tell us about your career as a scientist.

Why bother? I got a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry but never got around to publishing the research it reported. The one paper I have published which has collected a respectable number of citations - 24 - is

Sloman A.W., Buggs P., Molloy J., and Stewart D. “A microcontroller-based driver to stabilise the temperature of an optical stage to 1mK in the range 4C to 38C, using a Peltier heat pump and a thermistor sensor” Measurement Science and Technology, 7 1653-64 (1996).

The classic paper I cite - Larsen (1968) - has only had 35 citations, so 24 isn\'t too bad for the instrument literature.

24 citations is good, but that paper does not relate to physical chemistry.


Tell us about your own stellar career in science ..

You\'re the pompous ass who keeps telling someone they don\'t know anything or have it wrong or some other baseless criticism. When time and time again you are really describing yourself.

You do like to think so. It\'s obviously wishful thinking, but that the only kind of thinking you seem able to manage.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 7:31:00 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 01:42:10 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 6:42:34 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The headlines in today\'s San Francisco Comical (sorry, Chronicle) are
all about the economic and personal chaos and damage being done by
erratic lockdowns. And about hospitals putting up tents for the next
overload.

The last C19 death in San Francisco was just about a month ago.

Yeah, that certainly does look odd, since the last month has seen circa 60 cases a day
reported. I wonder if serious cases are being removed to a location outside the city?
That\'s about 1900 new cases in the last thirty days, so one would expect a two-digit
fatality number.

Testing is way, way up. That at least accounts for the increasing case
curve.

And, like in many other places, the death rate per infection is way
down.

Not by that much! I did a little cross-check, the San Francisco paper has
one or two obituaries most days that mention COVID. What kind of fiddle is
going on?

King County (Seattle, basically) has about 20 fatalities in similar 1900-case period.
I\'m not sure why Seattle and SF should have such different outcomes.

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 7:31:00 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 01:42:10 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 6:42:34 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The headlines in today\'s San Francisco Comical (sorry, Chronicle) are
all about the economic and personal chaos and damage being done by
erratic lockdowns. And about hospitals putting up tents for the next
overload.

The last C19 death in San Francisco was just about a month ago.

Yeah, that certainly does look odd, since the last month has seen circa 60 cases a day
reported. I wonder if serious cases are being removed to a location outside the city?
That\'s about 1900 new cases in the last thirty days, so one would expect a two-digit
fatality number.

Testing is way, way up. That at least accounts for the increasing case
curve.

And, like in many other places, the death rate per infection is way
down.

Not by that much! I did a little cross-check, the San Francisco paper has
one or two obituaries most days that mention COVID. What kind of fiddle is
going on?

King County (Seattle, basically) has about 20 fatalities in similar 1900-case period.
I\'m not sure why Seattle and SF should have such different outcomes.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 18/07/20 00:23, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 01:32:33 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 21:42, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:54:54 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 15:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:42:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 14:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:28:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 06:32, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
E.g., why would someone on the dole ever work for something they
already get free? It doesn\'t make any sense.

True for some people, false for many more.

Many people feel defined by their work, and feel
pointless without it. Such people have a tendency
to \"give up and die\" relatively shortly after
retiring.

You seem to understand Theory X companies, but
have no clue about Theory Y companies, as described
by McGregor in the 1950s.

Long before McGregor, Hewlett and Packard knew the
difference instinctively, and created a rather
successful Theory Y company. You may have heard
of it.

\"Theory Y managers assume employees are internally
motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better
themselves without a direct reward in return. These
managers view their employees as one of the most
valuable assets to the company, driving the internal
workings of the corporation. Employees additionally
tend to take full responsibility for their work and
do not need close supervision to create a quality
product.\"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y

Or, as famously noted at the time of Princess Fiorina,
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/loyal.shtml

Sure, but a company doesn\'t become a Y just with a policy statement.
It requires finding and hiring the right workers, treating them right,
and firing the ones that don\'t work out.

It didn\'t cross my mind anybody could think mere
policy statements could be sufficient.

In HP, the HP Way was continually reinforced and
re-explained by use of Bill and Dave anecdotes,
wheeled out to show how they thought and wanted
things to be done. Apparently when they were setting
up new sites the first hires became a little sick
and tired of them!

OTOH, Princess Fiorina made very animated policy
pronouncements, which nobody could understand.
That\'s one of the things that made me decide
to leave.

I have Packard\'s book, The HP Way. And I have Fiorina\'s book, The
Journey. The contrast is hilarious.

Not if you were in HP!


HP did that early on. By about 1980, not so well.

HP was /very/ careful about its hiring process, at least
until shortly before Fiorina ascended in 1999.

I interviewed at HP in about 1980. The guy was obnoxious. He would
have been my boss.

He looked at my resume and said \"The first thing you need to do is
decide if you are an engineer or a programmer.\"

What I decided to do was walk out.

Snap!

I had an interview at a GEC site in ~1981. After explaining
the hardware and software and systems I had designed, the
HRdroid asked me whether I was \"really a hardware of software
engineer\".

Somewhat surprisingly, I managed not to give him an earful.
I suspect the expression on my face and my answers becoming
terser might have alerted him to his faux pas. The idiot still
offered me a job.

I have a similar story from the 1970s, but it turned out rather
better.

I was applying to a middle size defense contractor in the Baltimore
suburbs, and the hiring manager looked over my resume, and asked which
I preferred, hardware or software. I replied that it was very useful
to be bilingual, to be able to speak hardware to software and vice
versa.

A very sensible response of course.

\"My\" GEC HRdroid couldn\'t comprehend anything beyond
square holes, and all round candidates has to be
force fitted into one of the square holes.

If the interviewer asks questions but listens to the
answers and avoids such destructive idiocies, that\'s
just fine.

One technique I developed was to ask ever wilder
questions, with the objective of getting them to
(sensibly) say \"no\". That gave me good insight into
the validity of their \"yes\" responses.

This would be for interviewing, versus being interviewed?

I was thinking of being interviewed. After starting my
second job (at a contract design and consultancy company)
they told me that I asked far more questions than most
candidates. I haven\'t stopped since

I haven\'t found it necessary when I\'m the technical
interviewer; there are other more fun and fruitful way
of smoking out blatherers.

I\'ve seen customers use that gambit to smoke technical blatherers out
as well - they\'ll agree to anything.

Oh yes! I\'ve heard them agree to do things that are
proven to be impossible, e.g. a solution to the
Byzantine Generals problem.

I did get the job, worked there for seven years, leaving only when I
decided to move back to the Boston area.

I was an embedded realtime programmer, writing in assembly code on the
metal in those days. All the embedded realtime programmers at that
company had hardware degrees, which was necessary to do much of
anything.

My experiences, in companies other than GEC, were
broadly similar.

Today, most programmers have CS degrees and do not understand how such
things as radars work, and must be spoon-fed.

As for the HRdroid, I forgot to mention that in Mechanical
Engineering, they push square pegs into round holes all the time - all
you need is a hydraulic press.

That might be part of the manufacturing process! I hate
things that are designed to be impossible to disassemble.

I occasionally point out that it is a known technique to
use a hammer to insert screws into wood - for all but the
last couple of turns.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 18/07/20 00:23, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 01:32:33 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 21:42, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:54:54 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 15:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:42:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 14:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:28:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 06:32, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
E.g., why would someone on the dole ever work for something they
already get free? It doesn\'t make any sense.

True for some people, false for many more.

Many people feel defined by their work, and feel
pointless without it. Such people have a tendency
to \"give up and die\" relatively shortly after
retiring.

You seem to understand Theory X companies, but
have no clue about Theory Y companies, as described
by McGregor in the 1950s.

Long before McGregor, Hewlett and Packard knew the
difference instinctively, and created a rather
successful Theory Y company. You may have heard
of it.

\"Theory Y managers assume employees are internally
motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better
themselves without a direct reward in return. These
managers view their employees as one of the most
valuable assets to the company, driving the internal
workings of the corporation. Employees additionally
tend to take full responsibility for their work and
do not need close supervision to create a quality
product.\"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y

Or, as famously noted at the time of Princess Fiorina,
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/loyal.shtml

Sure, but a company doesn\'t become a Y just with a policy statement.
It requires finding and hiring the right workers, treating them right,
and firing the ones that don\'t work out.

It didn\'t cross my mind anybody could think mere
policy statements could be sufficient.

In HP, the HP Way was continually reinforced and
re-explained by use of Bill and Dave anecdotes,
wheeled out to show how they thought and wanted
things to be done. Apparently when they were setting
up new sites the first hires became a little sick
and tired of them!

OTOH, Princess Fiorina made very animated policy
pronouncements, which nobody could understand.
That\'s one of the things that made me decide
to leave.

I have Packard\'s book, The HP Way. And I have Fiorina\'s book, The
Journey. The contrast is hilarious.

Not if you were in HP!


HP did that early on. By about 1980, not so well.

HP was /very/ careful about its hiring process, at least
until shortly before Fiorina ascended in 1999.

I interviewed at HP in about 1980. The guy was obnoxious. He would
have been my boss.

He looked at my resume and said \"The first thing you need to do is
decide if you are an engineer or a programmer.\"

What I decided to do was walk out.

Snap!

I had an interview at a GEC site in ~1981. After explaining
the hardware and software and systems I had designed, the
HRdroid asked me whether I was \"really a hardware of software
engineer\".

Somewhat surprisingly, I managed not to give him an earful.
I suspect the expression on my face and my answers becoming
terser might have alerted him to his faux pas. The idiot still
offered me a job.

I have a similar story from the 1970s, but it turned out rather
better.

I was applying to a middle size defense contractor in the Baltimore
suburbs, and the hiring manager looked over my resume, and asked which
I preferred, hardware or software. I replied that it was very useful
to be bilingual, to be able to speak hardware to software and vice
versa.

A very sensible response of course.

\"My\" GEC HRdroid couldn\'t comprehend anything beyond
square holes, and all round candidates has to be
force fitted into one of the square holes.

If the interviewer asks questions but listens to the
answers and avoids such destructive idiocies, that\'s
just fine.

One technique I developed was to ask ever wilder
questions, with the objective of getting them to
(sensibly) say \"no\". That gave me good insight into
the validity of their \"yes\" responses.

This would be for interviewing, versus being interviewed?

I was thinking of being interviewed. After starting my
second job (at a contract design and consultancy company)
they told me that I asked far more questions than most
candidates. I haven\'t stopped since

I haven\'t found it necessary when I\'m the technical
interviewer; there are other more fun and fruitful way
of smoking out blatherers.

I\'ve seen customers use that gambit to smoke technical blatherers out
as well - they\'ll agree to anything.

Oh yes! I\'ve heard them agree to do things that are
proven to be impossible, e.g. a solution to the
Byzantine Generals problem.

I did get the job, worked there for seven years, leaving only when I
decided to move back to the Boston area.

I was an embedded realtime programmer, writing in assembly code on the
metal in those days. All the embedded realtime programmers at that
company had hardware degrees, which was necessary to do much of
anything.

My experiences, in companies other than GEC, were
broadly similar.

Today, most programmers have CS degrees and do not understand how such
things as radars work, and must be spoon-fed.

As for the HRdroid, I forgot to mention that in Mechanical
Engineering, they push square pegs into round holes all the time - all
you need is a hydraulic press.

That might be part of the manufacturing process! I hate
things that are designed to be impossible to disassemble.

I occasionally point out that it is a known technique to
use a hammer to insert screws into wood - for all but the
last couple of turns.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 18/07/20 00:23, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 01:32:33 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 21:42, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:54:54 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 15:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:42:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 14:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:28:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/07/20 06:32, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
E.g., why would someone on the dole ever work for something they
already get free? It doesn\'t make any sense.

True for some people, false for many more.

Many people feel defined by their work, and feel
pointless without it. Such people have a tendency
to \"give up and die\" relatively shortly after
retiring.

You seem to understand Theory X companies, but
have no clue about Theory Y companies, as described
by McGregor in the 1950s.

Long before McGregor, Hewlett and Packard knew the
difference instinctively, and created a rather
successful Theory Y company. You may have heard
of it.

\"Theory Y managers assume employees are internally
motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better
themselves without a direct reward in return. These
managers view their employees as one of the most
valuable assets to the company, driving the internal
workings of the corporation. Employees additionally
tend to take full responsibility for their work and
do not need close supervision to create a quality
product.\"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y

Or, as famously noted at the time of Princess Fiorina,
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/loyal.shtml

Sure, but a company doesn\'t become a Y just with a policy statement.
It requires finding and hiring the right workers, treating them right,
and firing the ones that don\'t work out.

It didn\'t cross my mind anybody could think mere
policy statements could be sufficient.

In HP, the HP Way was continually reinforced and
re-explained by use of Bill and Dave anecdotes,
wheeled out to show how they thought and wanted
things to be done. Apparently when they were setting
up new sites the first hires became a little sick
and tired of them!

OTOH, Princess Fiorina made very animated policy
pronouncements, which nobody could understand.
That\'s one of the things that made me decide
to leave.

I have Packard\'s book, The HP Way. And I have Fiorina\'s book, The
Journey. The contrast is hilarious.

Not if you were in HP!


HP did that early on. By about 1980, not so well.

HP was /very/ careful about its hiring process, at least
until shortly before Fiorina ascended in 1999.

I interviewed at HP in about 1980. The guy was obnoxious. He would
have been my boss.

He looked at my resume and said \"The first thing you need to do is
decide if you are an engineer or a programmer.\"

What I decided to do was walk out.

Snap!

I had an interview at a GEC site in ~1981. After explaining
the hardware and software and systems I had designed, the
HRdroid asked me whether I was \"really a hardware of software
engineer\".

Somewhat surprisingly, I managed not to give him an earful.
I suspect the expression on my face and my answers becoming
terser might have alerted him to his faux pas. The idiot still
offered me a job.

I have a similar story from the 1970s, but it turned out rather
better.

I was applying to a middle size defense contractor in the Baltimore
suburbs, and the hiring manager looked over my resume, and asked which
I preferred, hardware or software. I replied that it was very useful
to be bilingual, to be able to speak hardware to software and vice
versa.

A very sensible response of course.

\"My\" GEC HRdroid couldn\'t comprehend anything beyond
square holes, and all round candidates has to be
force fitted into one of the square holes.

If the interviewer asks questions but listens to the
answers and avoids such destructive idiocies, that\'s
just fine.

One technique I developed was to ask ever wilder
questions, with the objective of getting them to
(sensibly) say \"no\". That gave me good insight into
the validity of their \"yes\" responses.

This would be for interviewing, versus being interviewed?

I was thinking of being interviewed. After starting my
second job (at a contract design and consultancy company)
they told me that I asked far more questions than most
candidates. I haven\'t stopped since

I haven\'t found it necessary when I\'m the technical
interviewer; there are other more fun and fruitful way
of smoking out blatherers.

I\'ve seen customers use that gambit to smoke technical blatherers out
as well - they\'ll agree to anything.

Oh yes! I\'ve heard them agree to do things that are
proven to be impossible, e.g. a solution to the
Byzantine Generals problem.

I did get the job, worked there for seven years, leaving only when I
decided to move back to the Boston area.

I was an embedded realtime programmer, writing in assembly code on the
metal in those days. All the embedded realtime programmers at that
company had hardware degrees, which was necessary to do much of
anything.

My experiences, in companies other than GEC, were
broadly similar.

Today, most programmers have CS degrees and do not understand how such
things as radars work, and must be spoon-fed.

As for the HRdroid, I forgot to mention that in Mechanical
Engineering, they push square pegs into round holes all the time - all
you need is a hydraulic press.

That might be part of the manufacturing process! I hate
things that are designed to be impossible to disassemble.

I occasionally point out that it is a known technique to
use a hammer to insert screws into wood - for all but the
last couple of turns.

 

[server]

On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 10:37:51 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 7:07:56 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 11:29:55 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 5:06:29 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has this paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/06/23/2006048117.full.pdf

Apparently if you spend time spelling out what exponential growth really means, even conservatives become more willing to take social distancing seriously.

It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who is really resistant to having things spelled out for him, and wouldn\'t work for Trump, who hasn\'t got a long enough attention span to let him absorb the message.

Another of your crap cites from the Sycophants. No such conclusions can be drawn from their phony research.

In your opinion. Nobody seems to have asked you to peer-review the paper when it was first submitted to PNAS.

Their phony work was based on a weak survey on MTurk, and it does not comply with any existing standards for psychological research.

As if you would know what they were. Or could even point to place where they were codified.

They mention it right there in that paper. Do you even read this stuff???

There is a link to https://osf.io/xjwbg/ but that\'s just a link to more of the same.

There is a reference to Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie,Ethisches Handeln in der psychologischen Forschung: Empfehlungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie für Forschendeund Ethikkommissionen, (Hogrefe, Göttingen, Germany, 2018)

but that\'s just about the ethics, as you\'d have been able to work out if you could read German.

Why don\'t you try reading the body of the paper, idiot.

You get a grade of \'F\' for attention to detail.

As assessed by you, who doesn\'t seem to know what he\'s talking about.

O course it seems that way to you because your comprehension is zero.

Tell us about your career as a scientist.

Why bother? I got a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry but never got around to publishing the research it reported. The one paper I have published which has collected a respectable number of citations - 24 - is

Sloman A.W., Buggs P., Molloy J., and Stewart D. “A microcontroller-based driver to stabilise the temperature of an optical stage to 1mK in the range 4C to 38C, using a Peltier heat pump and a thermistor sensor” Measurement Science and Technology, 7 1653-64 (1996).

The classic paper I cite - Larsen (1968) - has only had 35 citations, so 24 isn\'t too bad for the instrument literature.

24 citations is good, but that paper does not relate to physical chemistry.


Tell us about your own stellar career in science ..

You\'re the pompous ass who keeps telling someone they don\'t know anything or have it wrong or some other baseless criticism. When time and time again you are really describing yourself.

You do like to think so. It\'s obviously wishful thinking, but that the only kind of thinking you seem able to manage.

This coming from an obviously mindless fool who needs everything handed to him in simple terms on a silver platter.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 10:37:51 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 7:07:56 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 11:29:55 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 5:06:29 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has this paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/06/23/2006048117.full.pdf

Apparently if you spend time spelling out what exponential growth really means, even conservatives become more willing to take social distancing seriously.

It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who is really resistant to having things spelled out for him, and wouldn\'t work for Trump, who hasn\'t got a long enough attention span to let him absorb the message.

Another of your crap cites from the Sycophants. No such conclusions can be drawn from their phony research.

In your opinion. Nobody seems to have asked you to peer-review the paper when it was first submitted to PNAS.

Their phony work was based on a weak survey on MTurk, and it does not comply with any existing standards for psychological research.

As if you would know what they were. Or could even point to place where they were codified.

They mention it right there in that paper. Do you even read this stuff???

There is a link to https://osf.io/xjwbg/ but that\'s just a link to more of the same.

There is a reference to Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie,Ethisches Handeln in der psychologischen Forschung: Empfehlungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie für Forschendeund Ethikkommissionen, (Hogrefe, Göttingen, Germany, 2018)

but that\'s just about the ethics, as you\'d have been able to work out if you could read German.

Why don\'t you try reading the body of the paper, idiot.

You get a grade of \'F\' for attention to detail.

As assessed by you, who doesn\'t seem to know what he\'s talking about.

O course it seems that way to you because your comprehension is zero.

Tell us about your career as a scientist.

Why bother? I got a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry but never got around to publishing the research it reported. The one paper I have published which has collected a respectable number of citations - 24 - is

Sloman A.W., Buggs P., Molloy J., and Stewart D. “A microcontroller-based driver to stabilise the temperature of an optical stage to 1mK in the range 4C to 38C, using a Peltier heat pump and a thermistor sensor” Measurement Science and Technology, 7 1653-64 (1996).

The classic paper I cite - Larsen (1968) - has only had 35 citations, so 24 isn\'t too bad for the instrument literature.

24 citations is good, but that paper does not relate to physical chemistry.


Tell us about your own stellar career in science ..

You\'re the pompous ass who keeps telling someone they don\'t know anything or have it wrong or some other baseless criticism. When time and time again you are really describing yourself.

You do like to think so. It\'s obviously wishful thinking, but that the only kind of thinking you seem able to manage.

This coming from an obviously mindless fool who needs everything handed to him in simple terms on a silver platter.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 10:37:51 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 7:07:56 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 11:29:55 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 5:06:29 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today\'s Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has this paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/06/23/2006048117.full.pdf

Apparently if you spend time spelling out what exponential growth really means, even conservatives become more willing to take social distancing seriously.

It probably won\'t work on John Larkin who is really resistant to having things spelled out for him, and wouldn\'t work for Trump, who hasn\'t got a long enough attention span to let him absorb the message.

Another of your crap cites from the Sycophants. No such conclusions can be drawn from their phony research.

In your opinion. Nobody seems to have asked you to peer-review the paper when it was first submitted to PNAS.

Their phony work was based on a weak survey on MTurk, and it does not comply with any existing standards for psychological research.

As if you would know what they were. Or could even point to place where they were codified.

They mention it right there in that paper. Do you even read this stuff???

There is a link to https://osf.io/xjwbg/ but that\'s just a link to more of the same.

There is a reference to Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie,Ethisches Handeln in der psychologischen Forschung: Empfehlungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie für Forschendeund Ethikkommissionen, (Hogrefe, Göttingen, Germany, 2018)

but that\'s just about the ethics, as you\'d have been able to work out if you could read German.

Why don\'t you try reading the body of the paper, idiot.

You get a grade of \'F\' for attention to detail.

As assessed by you, who doesn\'t seem to know what he\'s talking about.

O course it seems that way to you because your comprehension is zero.

Tell us about your career as a scientist.

Why bother? I got a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry but never got around to publishing the research it reported. The one paper I have published which has collected a respectable number of citations - 24 - is

Sloman A.W., Buggs P., Molloy J., and Stewart D. “A microcontroller-based driver to stabilise the temperature of an optical stage to 1mK in the range 4C to 38C, using a Peltier heat pump and a thermistor sensor” Measurement Science and Technology, 7 1653-64 (1996).

The classic paper I cite - Larsen (1968) - has only had 35 citations, so 24 isn\'t too bad for the instrument literature.

24 citations is good, but that paper does not relate to physical chemistry.


Tell us about your own stellar career in science ..

You\'re the pompous ass who keeps telling someone they don\'t know anything or have it wrong or some other baseless criticism. When time and time again you are really describing yourself.

You do like to think so. It\'s obviously wishful thinking, but that the only kind of thinking you seem able to manage.

This coming from an obviously mindless fool who needs everything handed to him in simple terms on a silver platter.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[keith wright]

On Friday, 17 July 2020 13:36:11 UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
....
....People get stupid as the square of the number of
> cameras aimed at them. ...

That would account for Trump\'s extreme stupidity then with all the cameras aimed at him.
....

 

[keith wright]

On Friday, 17 July 2020 13:36:11 UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
....
....People get stupid as the square of the number of
> cameras aimed at them. ...

That would account for Trump\'s extreme stupidity then with all the cameras aimed at him.
....

 

[server]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 11:11:49 -0700 (PDT), keith wright
<keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

On Friday, 17 July 2020 13:36:11 UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
...
...People get stupid as the square of the number of
cameras aimed at them. ...

That would account for Trump\'s extreme stupidity then with all the cameras aimed at him.
...

The only antidote is common sense.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[server]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 11:11:49 -0700 (PDT), keith wright
<keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

On Friday, 17 July 2020 13:36:11 UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
...
...People get stupid as the square of the number of
cameras aimed at them. ...

That would account for Trump\'s extreme stupidity then with all the cameras aimed at him.
...

The only antidote is common sense.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[server]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 11:11:49 -0700 (PDT), keith wright
<keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

On Friday, 17 July 2020 13:36:11 UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
...
...People get stupid as the square of the number of
cameras aimed at them. ...

That would account for Trump\'s extreme stupidity then with all the cameras aimed at him.
...

The only antidote is common sense.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[keith wright]

On Saturday, 18 July 2020 12:17:52 UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 11:11:49 -0700 (PDT), keith wright
keith wright> wrote:

On Friday, 17 July 2020 13:36:11 UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
...
...People get stupid as the square of the number of
cameras aimed at them. ...

That would account for Trump\'s extreme stupidity then with all the cameras aimed at him.
...

The only antidote is common sense.

It\'s a shame that there doesn\'t seem to be any available.
....

 

[keith wright]

On Saturday, 18 July 2020 12:17:52 UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 11:11:49 -0700 (PDT), keith wright
keith wright> wrote:

On Friday, 17 July 2020 13:36:11 UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
...
...People get stupid as the square of the number of
cameras aimed at them. ...

That would account for Trump\'s extreme stupidity then with all the cameras aimed at him.
...

The only antidote is common sense.

It\'s a shame that there doesn\'t seem to be any available.
....

 

[keith wright]

On Saturday, 18 July 2020 12:17:52 UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 11:11:49 -0700 (PDT), keith wright
keith wright> wrote:

On Friday, 17 July 2020 13:36:11 UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
...
...People get stupid as the square of the number of
cameras aimed at them. ...

That would account for Trump\'s extreme stupidity then with all the cameras aimed at him.
...

The only antidote is common sense.

It\'s a shame that there doesn\'t seem to be any available.
....

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:44:04 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 7:31:00 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 01:42:10 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 6:42:34 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The headlines in today\'s San Francisco Comical (sorry, Chronicle) are
all about the economic and personal chaos and damage being done by
erratic lockdowns. And about hospitals putting up tents for the next
overload.

The last C19 death in San Francisco was just about a month ago.

Yeah, that certainly does look odd, since the last month has seen circa 60 cases a day
reported. I wonder if serious cases are being removed to a location outside the city?
That\'s about 1900 new cases in the last thirty days, so one would expect a two-digit
fatality number.

Testing is way, way up. That at least accounts for the increasing case
curve.

And, like in many other places, the death rate per infection is way
down.

Not by that much! I did a little cross-check, the San Francisco paper has
one or two obituaries most days that mention COVID. What kind of fiddle is
going on?

King County (Seattle, basically) has about 20 fatalities in similar 1900-case period.
I\'m not sure why Seattle and SF should have such different outcomes.

Looks like we\'re up to 52 deaths now, total 59 PPM of the population.

https://data.sfgov.org/stories/s/dak2-gvuj

LA has about 1000 PPM dead. Manhattan is about 2000. I wonder why so
many in a few hot spots. I don\'t think I\'ve seen this seriously
analyzed anywhere.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:44:04 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 7:31:00 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 01:42:10 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 6:42:34 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The headlines in today\'s San Francisco Comical (sorry, Chronicle) are
all about the economic and personal chaos and damage being done by
erratic lockdowns. And about hospitals putting up tents for the next
overload.

The last C19 death in San Francisco was just about a month ago.

Yeah, that certainly does look odd, since the last month has seen circa 60 cases a day
reported. I wonder if serious cases are being removed to a location outside the city?
That\'s about 1900 new cases in the last thirty days, so one would expect a two-digit
fatality number.

Testing is way, way up. That at least accounts for the increasing case
curve.

And, like in many other places, the death rate per infection is way
down.

Not by that much! I did a little cross-check, the San Francisco paper has
one or two obituaries most days that mention COVID. What kind of fiddle is
going on?

King County (Seattle, basically) has about 20 fatalities in similar 1900-case period.
I\'m not sure why Seattle and SF should have such different outcomes.

Looks like we\'re up to 52 deaths now, total 59 PPM of the population.

https://data.sfgov.org/stories/s/dak2-gvuj

LA has about 1000 PPM dead. Manhattan is about 2000. I wonder why so
many in a few hot spots. I don\'t think I\'ve seen this seriously
analyzed anywhere.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:44:04 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 7:31:00 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 01:42:10 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 6:42:34 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The headlines in today\'s San Francisco Comical (sorry, Chronicle) are
all about the economic and personal chaos and damage being done by
erratic lockdowns. And about hospitals putting up tents for the next
overload.

The last C19 death in San Francisco was just about a month ago.

Yeah, that certainly does look odd, since the last month has seen circa 60 cases a day
reported. I wonder if serious cases are being removed to a location outside the city?
That\'s about 1900 new cases in the last thirty days, so one would expect a two-digit
fatality number.

Testing is way, way up. That at least accounts for the increasing case
curve.

And, like in many other places, the death rate per infection is way
down.

Not by that much! I did a little cross-check, the San Francisco paper has
one or two obituaries most days that mention COVID. What kind of fiddle is
going on?

King County (Seattle, basically) has about 20 fatalities in similar 1900-case period.
I\'m not sure why Seattle and SF should have such different outcomes.

Looks like we\'re up to 52 deaths now, total 59 PPM of the population.

https://data.sfgov.org/stories/s/dak2-gvuj

LA has about 1000 PPM dead. Manhattan is about 2000. I wonder why so
many in a few hot spots. I don\'t think I\'ve seen this seriously
analyzed anywhere.