Driver to drive?

[JosephKK]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:16:05 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

I don't like big, sloppy, ugly, mushy, heavy cars, or slow, buggy,
annoying software. Does that make me un-American?

I wouldn't have thought so.


I did own a Ford Fiesta once, but it was made in Germany.

That's an ultra-compact for the USA. What did you think of it ?


The US makes the best aircraft, the best semiconductors, the best
computers, the best electronic instruments... lots of good things. But
the big3 auto makers have been paralyzed for decades by the unions and
their own bad management.

Are Boeing airliners really better than Airbuses ? Singapore Airlines LOVE their
A380s. They're performing beyond expectation.


What do you drive?

Saab. The choice of engineers and professionals generally.

Graham

No. Their heyday is quite passed. They were good until about 10 to
15 years ago.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:22:32 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Joerg wrote:

Big American cars are usually pretty good, comfortable and (when driven
gently) quite economical. Got 20mpg on a fully equipped Suburban and
also on a fully loaded Crown Victoria.

20 mpg is economical ?

At $1.70 a gallon, sure.

John

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <ikdrm4hb0guoedrsihdk5bgi8ohheqlgi0@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:41:32 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> schreef in bericht
news:418qm4pve7mb9563a3vdtkdr1j1mrf2uqk@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:50:28 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On 13 jan, 10:08, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
You've no idea how dodgy the 19th century CO2 measurments were
The articles I've read say the exact opposite. It's not a difficult
measurement. Now didn't the 19th century produce most Physics and
Chemistry too ? How on earth could they have done that if they could
even measure CO2 ?

They could measure it, but

<<<< SNIP likely/possible chemical analysis proceedure to edit for space>

If you looked at this link given by Don:

http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf

It shows the measurment techniques and notes the number of times
various scientist did them. For example Schultze 1600 measurement in 3
years, 1868-1871.

Even Keeling accepts the quality of some of the results taken in the
1870s. I note these are the ones that agree with his 280ppmv base
line. Me cynical?

Not cynical enough.

Note this sentence from the end of the paper

"Obviously they used only a few carefully selected values from
the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent
with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by
the burning of fossil fuel"

Since the crucial evidence that the rise in CO2 in air comes
burning fossil carbon is the changing carbon isotope ratio -
the Suess Effect - and is conclusive, this single sentence is
enough to reveal Ernst-Georg Beck to be an ignorant
amateur with an axe to grind.

The carbon isotope ratio in CO2 probably is changing. That doesn't
say anything about the total quantity of CO2.

Carbon 14 production is fairly constant, depending on nitrogen reacting
with cosmic rays. Percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere that is carbon 14
dioxide is fairly constant, varying mainly if the world's biomass
burns/decomposes or regrows or ocean temperature changes (warmer should
put more in the atmosphere, less should take more out).

Carbon 14 is radioactive and beta-decays to nitrogen 14 over time.
Fossil carbon is essentially free of carbon 14.

Increase of ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 14 means that the amount of
carbon in the carbon cycle has increased due to transfer of carbon from
fossil fuels to the carbon cycle.

My own opinion is that the measurements he's fussing about were
taken in places where people were already burning a lot of fossil
carbon, and are a great deal less reliable than he claims.

I thought your argument was people buring fossil carbon was the
problem. But you want to ignore data that may be contaminated by
people buring fossil carbon?

If they were contaminated with fossil carbon, then they would run higher
than then-prevailing CO2 content of the world's atmosphere as a whole on
that basis alone.

Was isotope ratio determined in those air samples?

Another explanation (I mentioned before) is that higher readings came
from air samples taken at night, on cloudy days, or first couple hours of
the morning, when air close to the ground over land having animals,
bacteria, fungi, yeast and fireplaces can be more CO2-rich than the
atmosphere as a whole. Those things add CO2, convection is usually absent
at those times, and plants usually don't remove much CO2 or have not had
much chance to remove much of a night's CO2 output during those times.

If isotope ratio was determined from air samples with CO2 running high,
it can be determined if that was mainly biomass/atmospheric carbon or had
significant fossil carbon. If the carbon was mainly non-fossil, as
mentioned abobe there is still a way for an air sample at low altitude
over land rich in life forms to run high.

Also notable would be weather conditions and time of day that air
samples are taken. If air samples are taken in early to mid afternoon on
a sunny or reasonably sunny day, especially if wind is blowing and not
from a nearby city, then CO2 content should usually be close to that of
the atmosphere as a whole.
And if the air in afternoon on a sunny day manages to be local ground
level air unperterbed by wind or convection past several hundred meters
(uncommon), if unaffected by combustion, will have CO2 content running low
if vegetation is abundant.
But when convection is absent or present to only a few hundred meters,
usually sunlight is absent or on the low side or has been significant for
only a short time - and plants would have done less than their usual of
their job.

<Snip stuff on German science>

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 09:56:11 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 01:29:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


T wrote:

I don't necessarily blame the paralysis on the unions. On the other hand
the perfect example is GM.

Good friend of mine worked on the financial side of GM manufacturing and
the stories he tells me about the newly minted MBA's are astounding.


The stories GM engineers told me about the unions made you want to
vomit. UAW members I knew bragged about how little work they actually
did.

It's been going on for so long it'll take bankruptcy to stop it.

In the mid '60's I toured a Delco (GM) alternator plant in (IIRC)
Anderson, Indiana.

They were building alternators there using robots... untouched by
human hands... spin armature... measure wobble... stop armature
precisely... drill balance hole... spin again, etc.

Only problem... there was a PAID union employee standing there, DOING
NOTHING but watching the robot... one union employee per machine!

I could understand having one employee to watch for fault conditions
for the whole production floor, but ONE PER MACHINE???

Sheeeesh!

But you leftist weenies should be happy... it's called full employment
and "share the wealth" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

For how many decades were there "firemen" (whose job was to shovel
coal into the steam engine) on board diesel locomotives?

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:30:11 -0800 (PST), osr@uakron.edu wrote:

Good friend of mine worked on the financial side of GM manufacturing and
the stories he tells me about the newly minted MBA's are astounding.

Not just at G.M, I'm sure.

M.B.A = Masters in Business Assassination

Modern M.B.A strategy = 1. Get in. 2.Spin off the profitable
assets. 3. Buy the stock back using asset money. 4 Flip max profits
for a few years at the cost of steady long term growth, thus fooling
potential stockholders 5. Sell the stock! 6. get out quickly before
stock falls. 7. Take a golden parachute for bankrupting the company.
8. Do it again some place else.

Can you tell I hate MBAs?

Just my 2 cents...


Steve

It hardly even shows. >;-P

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:39:46 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:20:44 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



krw wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
T wrote:
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says...

I don't necessarily blame the paralysis on the unions. On the other hand
the perfect example is GM.

Several new Saturns are actually German Opels. Seems GM can't even design a car
any more.

...and Opel is owned by?

I know perfectly well who by. The Germans put the Americans to shame. Or can you
think of another reason why GM would be importing German cars and designs ?

The same reason other multi-national corporations "import designs"
from other subsidiaries, Dumb Donkey.

Opel won't go under. Neither will Saab, I expect. They actually have the technology.

What a dumb donkey. They are OWNED BY GM and will go where GM goes,
Dumbass Fugly Donkey.

And GM seems headed for bankruptcy, even with the bail out. Next.

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:24:49 -0800 (PST), JeffM <jeffm_@email.com>
wrote:

Charles wrote:
Someone who hates U.S. industry so much
that they would never buy a Ford or a Windows based instrument
must live somewhere else, or plans to soon emigrate.
Please do emigrate.

JeffM wrote:
Microsoft
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:hFRqrS0qQJcJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft+17+v+20+*-*-*-*-*-restrictive-licensing-agreements+anticompetitive&strip=1
is far from the only game in town:
Linus Torvalds San Jose, CA, USA
Software in the Public Interest, Inc. (debian.org) Indianapolis, IN,
USA
Red Hat, Inc. Raleigh, NC, USA
The FreeBSD Foundation Boulder, CO, USA
Internetwork Hacker (netbsd.org) Somerville, MA, USA
Shift-Right Technologies, LLC. (XMK) Lawrenceville, GA, USA
OAR Corporation (RTEMS) Huntsville, AL, USA
Micrium, Inc. (?C/OS-II) Weston, FL, USA

Joerg wrote:
Don't forget these guys:
http://www.qnx.com/
One of the most robust operating systems I ever used.
Ok, maybe Charles won't like them because they are Canadian.

Yup. There are plenty of exemplars.
I weeded out the non-USA ones to focus my point.

Anyhow, I won't buy a scope that is Windows-based

It's not like we don't have enough data points to know
not to use that defective-by-design infection-prone PoS
in a device that may see a network connection.

and I won't buy a car that is Windows-based.

Gives a whole new dimension to "crash".

Seen too much grief.

Yup. Nuts to that devil-you-know nonsense.
http://www.google.com/search?q=You-knew-I-was-a+snake+OR+rattlesnake

Describes most politicians really well.

 

[Ben Bradley]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 09:48:54 +0100, Frank Buss <fb@frank-buss.de>
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Dorothy Willows saw orangeyyellow spheres. 'I don't believe in UFOs but
it was a low-flying object,' said Mrs Willows.

I believe in UFOs. It means just Unidentified Flying Object.

That damn initialism has been redefined by the UFOlogists and other
flying-caucer chasers to mean sonething like a real live LGM-piloted
craft. Never mind the judgement-neutral straight interpretation of the
initialism - doing that is so old-fashioned, so, um, "rational."

It's this overloading of the language that causes much
miscommunication (between different human beings - never mind between
humans and aliens).

 

[Robert Baer]

Skybuck Flying wrote:

Easy,

Get some F16's equip them with sand penetrating scanners and voila !

All stuff found lightning fast.

You not gonna let a bit of sand stop you ? LOL.

Bye,
Skybuck.


Most definitely filberts!

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2009-01-14, JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:24:12 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
null@example.net> wrote:

That is already taxed at the state level (in most states) Do you want
to add a Federal tax to that (even at the hope of eliminating personal
income tax, it would be very high ~ 20%). Do you think the sheeple
would allow that? Don't pester us again without numbers that show tax
dollars versus income for your scheme.

I think he means a tax on turnover instead of on profit

such a tax could lead to upheaval in many low-margin sectors
and will be unpopular with MLM organisations like Amway.

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <l5jrm494f1pd5ub2p4v4l37cjqr1m2fgfi@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:

<Edited to space to include only discussion on Mauna Loa>

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:42:18 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On 14 jan, 11:04, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:41:32 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
....
It's local contamination. Beck wants to compare these figures with
data from Antarctic ice cores and Mauna Loa, which are both free from
this sort of contamination - Mauna Loa because they stop sampling when
the volcano is erupting (which isn't often).


Info from elsewhere in ther thread.

http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/programs/esrl/volcanicco2/volcanicco2.html

/quote

A volcanic component can be estimated by taking the difference in
concentration between periods when the plume is present and periods
immediately before and after that exhibit baseline conditions.

Right after the 1984 eruption, Mauna Loa emitted as much CO2 as an
American city of 40,000 people. By 2005, these emissions had fallen by
a factor of about 100.

/end quote

Note estimated. To give results published to 0.1ppmv accuracy.

And the crew at Mauna Loa can tell fairly well when and when not the
plume is blowing their way. And the Wiki article on Mauna Loa notes the
1984 eruption to have been March 15 to April 24 1984.

Meanwhile, how has their determination of atmospheric CO2 concentration
fared during the pre-eruption years before 1984, and around/after 2005?

As of 2006:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_data_mlo.svg

As of a couple years later:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

Has a link to, noteworthy:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

The graph of "Wisconsin Tower" results in July ahould say something
about results obtained at low altitudes over land.

Mention of sunset being 7 PM local time lacks Daylight Savings Time
adjustment - 1 AM UTC is 8 PM CDT, probably about maybe somewhat less than
half an hour before actual sunset in Wisconsin in mid-July.

Pay attention to CO2 spiking closest to ground when life forms are more
present but lacking sunlight, and midday-afternoon making readings from 11
to 396 meters generally equal and probably representative of the
atmosphere - when they run low.
(Though 396 meters appeared here to be high enough to give a fairly good
daily average reasonably free of nighttime spikes, and 244 meters was
hardly worse.
122 meters sometimes has minor nighttime spikes slightly affecting
for-the-whole-day levels, it gets somewhat worse at 76 meters, but it gets
really bad at 30 meters and spectacularly bad at 11 meters.

The graph of results from Wisconsin Tower in January say a different
story - the land there is apparently much less alive there in January!


Detail on past 5 years, to the extent just 5 years means anything:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Text file of several versions of the monthly data from raw monthly
determination to results with various filterings:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2

If their acuuracy is so much as 2 orders of magnitude worse than .1
ppmv, then the story they are telling does not change much.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:20:47 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

The graph of "Wisconsin Tower" results in July ahould say something
about results obtained at low altitudes over land.

That tower's design and some reasoning behind it is discussed in
Rebecca A. Washenfelder Ph.D. thesis, 2006, titled, "Column Abundances
of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Retrieved from Ground-Based
Near-Infrared Solar Spectra." Worth a scan.

Jon

 

[James Arthur]

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On 13 jan, 01:20, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:37:25 -0800, Gunner Asch
gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:10:01 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
Keep in mind that most historians and economists believe that if Hoover
and FDR had left well enough alone, that the Great Depression would have
been over in less than 3 yrs, instead of dragging it out for 11
Most of the historians and economists incarcerated in a lunatic asylum
near you?
It's not an opinion that I'v ever heard, but I don't read histories
that have been crafted to appeal to right-wing Republicans.
Perhaps you could name a few authors and some of the books that tout
this interesting theory?
Lowell Vedder and Richard Gallaway, Out of Work: Unemployment and
Government in Twentieth Century America
Wartime Prosperity? A Reassessment of the U.S. Economy in the 1940s
Robert Higgs
Brad DeLong's "Slouching Towards Utopia?: The Economic History of the
Twentieth Century
You may wish to google "leave it alone Liquidationists"
Okay. The argument is that the unemployed should have been forced back
into work at starvation wages by reducing or eliminating unemployment
benefit - in as far as Roosevelt increased the the payments to the
unemployed, he was thus doing the wrong thing.
again you are in error....
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/6550
http://www.amazon.com/FDRs-Folly-Roosevelt-Prolonged-Depression/dp/07...
Shrug...why not admit you were parroting the popular (but incorrect)
party line?
Gunner
Giving money to the poor, to keep them from misery, is an admirable
act of charity. But since they will immediately spend it, the money
competes in the marketplace and drives up prices for everyone else.
This is pure income redistribution, which always has overheads. There
is no "pump priming" here... spending on consumption creates no
investment, no productivity, no goods, no jobs. The effects are
apparently short-term good, actually long-term bad.
A society can't, longterm, consume more than it produces. Well, unless
they steal it.
Sloman is on the receiving end of redistributionist economics, so of
course he approves the theory.
John
"The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
count on the support of Paul." --G.B. Shaw

Peter being the regular taxpayer, and Paul the "defence" industries?

We spend but a trifle on defense; two-thirds of our money goes
to the dole, and only about one-in-four contributes.

Problem is, we've got too many Pauls, not enough Peters, and that's
why we're having trouble paying the Bills.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2009-01-14, JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:16:40 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:53:12 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

We have a shop here in town that specializes in inspecting used cars
before you buy.

They also warn you if a car previously lived back east ;-)

...Jim Thompson

They should warn you if it lived in snow country, near (25 Mi) any
ocean (salt air), or other factors that degrade vehicle longevity.

oceans dont degrade vehicles (unless you drive in them).
Mums beetle lasted 30+ years (before it was totalled in an accident)
and spent 99% of that within 6mi of the pacific, and 80% of
that within 1mi, during that time it was re-painted once.

What'll do cars in is humid climate.

 

[Joe G (Home)]

"Skybuck Flying" <BloodyShame@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:26660$496cc9cf$d5337e4d$2924@cache2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...

There are much easier ways of getting personal data from people.

Not on the street.

I tell wacko's to take a hike and that's when I am being nice.

Bye,
Skybuck.

You can get peoples id, buy reading there letters taken from their letter

box.

eg... Gas, Electric bills etc.........

NO ELECTRONICS required

Joe

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:29:55 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <ikdrm4hb0guoedrsihdk5bgi8ohheqlgi0@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:41:32 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> schreef in bericht
news:418qm4pve7mb9563a3vdtkdr1j1mrf2uqk@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:50:28 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On 13 jan, 10:08, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
You've no idea how dodgy the 19th century CO2 measurments were
The articles I've read say the exact opposite. It's not a difficult
measurement. Now didn't the 19th century produce most Physics and
Chemistry too ? How on earth could they have done that if they could
even measure CO2 ?

They could measure it, but

SNIP likely/possible chemical analysis proceedure to edit for space

If you looked at this link given by Don:

http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf

It shows the measurment techniques and notes the number of times
various scientist did them. For example Schultze 1600 measurement in 3
years, 1868-1871.

Even Keeling accepts the quality of some of the results taken in the
1870s. I note these are the ones that agree with his 280ppmv base
line. Me cynical?

Not cynical enough.

Note this sentence from the end of the paper

"Obviously they used only a few carefully selected values from
the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent
with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by
the burning of fossil fuel"

Since the crucial evidence that the rise in CO2 in air comes
burning fossil carbon is the changing carbon isotope ratio -
the Suess Effect - and is conclusive, this single sentence is
enough to reveal Ernst-Georg Beck to be an ignorant
amateur with an axe to grind.

The carbon isotope ratio in CO2 probably is changing. That doesn't
say anything about the total quantity of CO2.

Carbon 14 production is fairly constant, depending on nitrogen reacting
with cosmic rays. Percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere that is carbon 14
dioxide is fairly constant, varying mainly if the world's biomass
burns/decomposes or regrows or ocean temperature changes (warmer should
put more in the atmosphere, less should take more out).

Carbon 14 is radioactive and beta-decays to nitrogen 14 over time.
Fossil carbon is essentially free of carbon 14.

Increase of ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 14 means that the amount of
carbon in the carbon cycle has increased due to transfer of carbon from
fossil fuels to the carbon cycle.

I accept that more of the free CO2 in the air will be from fossil
fuels. I don't accept (which does not mean I deny) that the CO2 has
increased in the last 200 years. The atmospheric CO2 gets absorbed by
the oceans, turned into trees etc.. The oceans also release CO2 and
the Amazon gets burned. What I am questioning is the balance of these
activities.

Real CO2 measurements for 150 of the last 200 years have been ignored
and highly averaged readings from ice cores used. I will get round to
reading what Keeling et al have to say on this but for now I am
sceptical.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:41:08 -0800 (PST)) it happened
"miso@sushi.com" <miso@sushi.com> wrote in
<8a46e3d5-2e55-46ff-aab7-d9b114e32182@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>:

LDOs are funny things. Too much gain can be a problem. Generally a
single gain stage works best since you have to deal with pole shifting
due to the external load. So beware of using multistage op amps in
such circuits.

Yes

Wouldn't you just pick a voltage and linear regulate to it? The
trouble with your sensing scheme is it will need to take into account
spikes on the supply due to load variations. While you are thinking of
a feedforward design, there is feedback from the load variance to
consider.

No, I am not talking about a feed forward design.

I did mean this:
10mV reference
|
noisy DC source -- series regulator --- negative peak detector - level comparator ----
| |
| |
------------------------<----------------------------------


The negative peaks only, because the positive peaks will just be regulated out anyways.
Not sure it will work....

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"Rich Grise" <rich@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2009.01.15.00.18.26.62909@example.net...

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:01:20 +0100, Skybuck Flying wrote:

Do still think wearing a tin foil hat is funny ?

No, merely pathetic.

Ok so no tin foil hat for you ?

How about a balls-protector ?

You do have balls right ?

Bye,
Skybuck

 

[Jan Panteltje]

I wrote:

No, I am not talking about a feed forward design.

I did mean this:
10mV reference
|
noisy DC source -- series regulator --- negative peak detector - level comparator ----
| |
| |
------------------------<----------------------------------


The negative peaks only, because the positive peaks will just be regulated out anyways.
Not sure it will work....

OK, it works in LTspice, with a generic opamp (whatever that may be ):

Here is with 2 volt sine ripple superimposed on 12V battery, see how it finds the optimum setting:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/two_volt_ripple.gif
The red line is the battery + ripple.
The green line is the output voltage
The cyan line is the output of opamp U2.
That will go chaotic, just fine, ripple noise is chaotic too ;-)
The chaos is filtered out in the loop filter.

Here is with half a volt ripple:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/half_volt_ripple.gif

And here with almost none (50 mV) ripple:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/50_millivolt_ripple.gif

See how close we get with the low dropout to the 12V battery voltage in this case!
As I did set a maximum ripple with R15 / R16 (presented to comparator U2), the loop
now longer is active, so 50 mV is allowed, and the MOSFET is 100% on.
Or almost 100% anyways.
Dunno if I will ever build this, more a proof of concept.
Minimum dissipation in a linear series regulator.

Note that I disabled the short circuit protection by shorting the collector of Q1 against
it's emitter.
Measuring the drop over the MOSFET will not work here, those components should be removed.

 

[Greegor]

Again I am worried about leaking information to criminals on the street.

Don't worry, the RUSSIANS already have all of your information
anyway! LOL