Driver to drive?

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 11:48:59 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 10:34:59 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:28:48 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:26:11 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:23:13 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov
wrote:

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote
in news:edfqi5tk6b3jj2sh5qrvn3iv4vftvrk8pf@4ax.com:

[auto-snip]
I know. I know. _Many_ of my hybrids circuits are in the TOW...
remember it was Hughes _Tucson_.


...Jim Thompson

well,you don't want to have wires dragging from your car after you've taken
care of some MFFY driver up ahead. ;-)

that's why Spike is so appropo;
you lock in their image,launch,and Spike does the rest on it's own,you are
free to leave...with no wires trailing.And Spike's small warhead means
little "collateral damage". it actually blows up INSIDE the vehicle.
it's also a FAST little missile.600 MPH in 1.5 sec.



MFFY; "Me First,F-You".

I have in mind some stationary targets ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Anybody have design details for a small rail gun ?

...Jim Thompson

The smallest that i have found needs a half ton pickup.

I have one of those ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Sorry then, that is the smallest i have found.

 

[Robert Baer]

Well i tried one of those recordings on
http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html and the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..

 

[Greegor]

On Dec 25, 11:15 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:

   Well i tried one of those recordings onhttp://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.htmland the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2 weeks.
   What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
   The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
   Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
   Pissant bureaucrats!
**
   It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..

Companies with trunk lines, and people who
pay for certain special VOIP services can
present any fake phone number they want.

Some outfit started that auto warranty
extension scam and eventually they
actually got busted for it by the FTC
with the help of many state attorneys general.

The sheer volume of the calls caught up to them.

The reason it continues is that they had set
it up like MLM, with lots of subordinate
outfits making large numbers of calls.

They lie and say that they were referred by
your cars manufacturer. They also lie
about who they are and where they are.

Another skanky and abusive telemarketer
that I tracked down was actually a subsidiary
of a small regional telephone company
which probably gave them tremendous
ability to present bogus caller ID information.

Here's stuff on two of the biggest phone scams out there.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=heather+in+accounting+telemarketing+scam

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=auto+warranty+scam&aq=1&oq=auto+warranty

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/05/robocalls.shtm

 

[nuny@bid.nes]

On Dec 25, 9:15 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:

   Well i tried one of those recordings onhttp://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.htmland the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2 weeks.
   What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
   The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
   Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
   Pissant bureaucrats!
**
   It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..

You're doing it wrong. You're assuming Government will help you and
getting pissed off when you should be having fun with them.

Answer the call, listen to the pitch, answer all the questions as if
you want to buy what they're selling right up until you get to where
they want your credit card number or mailing address then say "just a
minute, I have to go to the bathroom; I'll be right back", then lay
the phone down and listen for the BEEP BEEP BEEP letting you know
they've disconnected, then hang up.

When they call back, apologize for the unreliable phone connection
and repeat the above procedure, with variations like interrupting the
caller to discuss your grandson's first tooth, your hernia operation/
kidney stone/colostomy bag, how the Liberals/Conservatives/Communists/
Christians/Muslims/Atheists are ruining the country, or whatever
amuses you. Eventually they'll decide they're not going to be able to
sell you anything and cross your number off their list.

It may take a while, and the bastards may resell your number to
somebody else, but keep at it. AFAIK it's the only sure way to get rid
of them without going completely off-grid.


Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"nuny@bid.nes" wrote:

On Dec 25, 9:15 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
Well i tried one of those recordings onhttp://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.htmland the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..

You're doing it wrong. You're assuming Government will help you and
getting pissed off when you should be having fun with them.

Answer the call, listen to the pitch, answer all the questions as if
you want to buy what they're selling right up until you get to where
they want your credit card number or mailing address then say "just a
minute, I have to go to the bathroom; I'll be right back", then lay
the phone down and listen for the BEEP BEEP BEEP letting you know
they've disconnected, then hang up.

When they call back, apologize for the unreliable phone connection
and repeat the above procedure, with variations like interrupting the
caller to discuss your grandson's first tooth, your hernia operation/
kidney stone/colostomy bag, how the Liberals/Conservatives/Communists/
Christians/Muslims/Atheists are ruining the country, or whatever
amuses you. Eventually they'll decide they're not going to be able to
sell you anything and cross your number off their list.

It may take a while, and the bastards may resell your number to
somebody else, but keep at it. AFAIK it's the only sure way to get rid
of them without going completely off-grid.

Or ask them how hard it is to set up a phone scam like theirs, since
you're out of work.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:15:06 -0800) it happened Robert Baer
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in
<1KOdndg809PrBqjWnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@posted.localnet>:

Well i tried one of those recordings on
http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html and the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..

Just pick up the phoe with: 'Department of Homeland Security'.

 

[PeterD]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:15:06 -0800, Robert Baer
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Well i tried one of those recordings on
http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html and the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..

Get caller id
Look at caller id
Recognize name, answer.
Don't recognize name: pickup/hangup.
Repeat as necessary.
Get on the federal Do Not Call list.


Best thing is to get a live person on the phone. Then string them
along as much as possible. If you get a man, tell him you'd rather
speak to a woman. If he puts a female on, string her along, then start
getting 'sexy' with her. Tell her you're glad she called, you are
horny. If the man says "No woman available" waste as much time of his
as you can, then tell him you are 12 years old, and lonly. Then thank
him for asking to have sex with you, but you'll have to ask your
parents.

The trick is to waste as much time of theirs as you can. Try to keep
them online for at least 15 minutes with a live person. Don't waste
time with recordings/electronic systems, get a live person on the
line. Then waste, waste time, and always end up with "I'm 12 years
old, thanks for asking me to have sex with you..."

 

[Baron]

Robert Baer Inscribed thus:

Well i tried one of those recordings on
http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html and the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2
weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..

I ended up with having to give up my number and was issued with a new
one that it permanently withheld and registered with TPS.

Even that didn't stop all the unwanted calls. Apparently they use an
incrementing count dialer to find the hidden numbers. So if you answer
the phone they log the fact and record it.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

 

[Baron]

Michael A. Terrell Inscribed thus:

"nuny@bid.nes" wrote:

On Dec 25, 9:15 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
Well i tried one of those recordings
onhttp://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.htmland the
marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least
2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a
"UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that
the call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the
so-called call annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning
the message was a blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..

You're doing it wrong. You're assuming Government will help you and
getting pissed off when you should be having fun with them.

Answer the call, listen to the pitch, answer all the questions as
if
you want to buy what they're selling right up until you get to where
they want your credit card number or mailing address then say "just a
minute, I have to go to the bathroom; I'll be right back", then lay
the phone down and listen for the BEEP BEEP BEEP letting you know
they've disconnected, then hang up.

When they call back, apologize for the unreliable phone connection
and repeat the above procedure, with variations like interrupting the
caller to discuss your grandson's first tooth, your hernia operation/
kidney stone/colostomy bag, how the
Liberals/Conservatives/Communists/ Christians/Muslims/Atheists are
ruining the country, or whatever amuses you. Eventually they'll
decide they're not going to be able to sell you anything and cross
your number off their list.

It may take a while, and the bastards may resell your number to
somebody else, but keep at it. AFAIK it's the only sure way to get
rid of them without going completely off-grid.


Or ask them how hard it is to set up a phone scam like theirs,
since
you're out of work.

Nice ! I hadn't thought of that one... ;-)

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:15:06 -0800, Robert Baer
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Well i tried one of those recordings on
http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html and the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..

After the holidays I plan to buy...

http://jfteck.com/

And make some additional modifications.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Help save the environment!
Please dispose of socialism responsibly!

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:25:47 -0800, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:28:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
1% regulation looks OK to me unless you can show me the design specs.

I gave you a great pair of references which just happen to address
this directly for you and you haven't even bothered to read them.
That's clear. One in 1969 and another 40 years later in 2009 which
supplements the topics, as well as going further. Nice bookends and
you never could have written the above if you so much as had glancing
familiarity with mathematics or had read even one of those two papers.

Just one time I'd like to see a single _informed_ statement from some
naysayer here instead of just pulling numbers out of butts and making
up, entirely out of whole cloth, what the randomly conjured number
then supposedly means in a situation they know nothing about.

Reminds me of a hillbilly joke, but it's too crass to post here.

Jon

Having now had a chance to read these articles I note they are nothing
to do with anthropogenic global warming.

If you are interested in the cyclic nature of arctic ice see:

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Fred Abse wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:46:27 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


krw wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 13:18:50 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Fred Abse wrote:

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:57:21 +0000, Eeyore wrote:



bg wrote:

Metric is for people that have to count on their fingers !

What an absurd comment. Do you have 12 fingers so you can count in inches to the
foot ?


Maybe some folks in the Appalachians, or the bayous ;-)


Some of the Brits don't have 12 teeth left. More have 10.

That's whole towns. Well, they are socialists.


And a lot are antisocial.

It does appear that socialism and antisocial behavior go together. Look at
the behavior of left-wing demonstrators.

No thanks! I saw the morons rioting once, and that was enough.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

 

[Howard Eisenhauer]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:25:50 -0800 (PST), "nuny@bid.nes"
<alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 25, 9:15 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
   Well i tried one of those recordings onhttp://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.htmland the marketeers that
*Snip*

You're doing it wrong. You're assuming Government will help you and
getting pissed off when you should be having fun with them.

*Snip*

Mark L. Fergerson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1waHJhb2wxo

H. :>

 

[Rich Webb]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:46:25 -0800, Fred Abse
<excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:46:27 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


krw wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 13:18:50 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Fred Abse wrote:

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:57:21 +0000, Eeyore wrote:



bg wrote:

Metric is for people that have to count on their fingers !

What an absurd comment. Do you have 12 fingers so you can count in inches to the
foot ?


Maybe some folks in the Appalachians, or the bayous ;-)


Some of the Brits don't have 12 teeth left. More have 10.

That's whole towns. Well, they are socialists.


And a lot are antisocial.

It does appear that socialism and antisocial behavior go together. Look at
the behavior of left-wing demonstrators.

Unlike the well-dressed right-wing demonstrators
http://shii.org/knows/Get_A_Brain_Morans

oops... wrong link. Meant this one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31074-2005Jan23.html

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:50:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:25:47 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:28:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
1% regulation looks OK to me unless you can show me the design specs.

I gave you a great pair of references which just happen to address
this directly for you and you haven't even bothered to read them.
That's clear. One in 1969 and another 40 years later in 2009 which
supplements the topics, as well as going further. Nice bookends and
you never could have written the above if you so much as had glancing
familiarity with mathematics or had read even one of those two papers.

Just one time I'd like to see a single _informed_ statement from some
naysayer here instead of just pulling numbers out of butts and making
up, entirely out of whole cloth, what the randomly conjured number
then supposedly means in a situation they know nothing about.

Reminds me of a hillbilly joke, but it's too crass to post here.

Jon

Having now had a chance to read these articles I note they are nothing
to do with anthropogenic global warming.

It was about the "1% regulation looks OK" ignorant comment. Now, it
was conditioned by the "design specs" escape clause. But the only way
to get past ignorant comments like this is to ... work hard at gaining
a comprehensive view. The papers I mentioned _do_ help address
getting an education and they do deal with the idea of "regulation" in
a relatively large region of our planetary sphere.

Since you say you have read those two, you must realize by now that
there are a number of other papers referenced that are also needed in
order to apprehend them well enough to discuss informed opinions about
them. First off, would you be willing to discuss the details of just
these two? I'd like to cover some of the mathematics involved and
some detailed thoughts about the implications within them. I also
think it will be impossible to agree, without digging into many of the
other resources (as well as contacting some of the scientists who are
specialists in varying areas discussed in them), on at least some of
the aspects of these two. So we'd need to work hard and I don't
expect this to handed to either of us on a silver platter or as a
pill. But that's what it takes -- work. Are you willing to do that
with me?

If you are interested in the cyclic nature of arctic ice see:

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401

I'm interested in seeing a cure to profound ignorance speaking here.
That means we each need to _work_ for our opinions. It's the _work_ I
am interested in seeing happen.

Join me?

Jon

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:39:23 -0800, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:50:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:25:47 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:28:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
1% regulation looks OK to me unless you can show me the design specs.

I gave you a great pair of references which just happen to address
this directly for you and you haven't even bothered to read them.
That's clear. One in 1969 and another 40 years later in 2009 which
supplements the topics, as well as going further. Nice bookends and
you never could have written the above if you so much as had glancing
familiarity with mathematics or had read even one of those two papers.

Just one time I'd like to see a single _informed_ statement from some
naysayer here instead of just pulling numbers out of butts and making
up, entirely out of whole cloth, what the randomly conjured number
then supposedly means in a situation they know nothing about.

Reminds me of a hillbilly joke, but it's too crass to post here.

Jon

Having now had a chance to read these articles I note they are nothing
to do with anthropogenic global warming.

It was about the "1% regulation looks OK" ignorant comment. Now, it
was conditioned by the "design specs" escape clause. But the only way
to get past ignorant comments like this is to ... work hard at gaining
a comprehensive view. The papers I mentioned _do_ help address
getting an education and they do deal with the idea of "regulation" in
a relatively large region of our planetary sphere.

Since you say you have read those two, you must realize by now that
there are a number of other papers referenced that are also needed in
order to apprehend them well enough to discuss informed opinions about
them. First off, would you be willing to discuss the details of just
these two? I'd like to cover some of the mathematics involved and
some detailed thoughts about the implications within them. I also
think it will be impossible to agree, without digging into many of the
other resources (as well as contacting some of the scientists who are
specialists in varying areas discussed in them), on at least some of
the aspects of these two. So we'd need to work hard and I don't
expect this to handed to either of us on a silver platter or as a
pill. But that's what it takes -- work. Are you willing to do that
with me?

If you are interested in the cyclic nature of arctic ice see:

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401

I'm interested in seeing a cure to profound ignorance speaking here.
That means we each need to _work_ for our opinions. It's the _work_ I
am interested in seeing happen.

Join me?

Jon

Why don't you join us and post something interesting about electronic
design?

John

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:48:26 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:39:23 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:50:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:25:47 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:28:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
1% regulation looks OK to me unless you can show me the design specs.

I gave you a great pair of references which just happen to address
this directly for you and you haven't even bothered to read them.
That's clear. One in 1969 and another 40 years later in 2009 which
supplements the topics, as well as going further. Nice bookends and
you never could have written the above if you so much as had glancing
familiarity with mathematics or had read even one of those two papers.

Just one time I'd like to see a single _informed_ statement from some
naysayer here instead of just pulling numbers out of butts and making
up, entirely out of whole cloth, what the randomly conjured number
then supposedly means in a situation they know nothing about.

Reminds me of a hillbilly joke, but it's too crass to post here.

Jon

Having now had a chance to read these articles I note they are nothing
to do with anthropogenic global warming.

It was about the "1% regulation looks OK" ignorant comment. Now, it
was conditioned by the "design specs" escape clause. But the only way
to get past ignorant comments like this is to ... work hard at gaining
a comprehensive view. The papers I mentioned _do_ help address
getting an education and they do deal with the idea of "regulation" in
a relatively large region of our planetary sphere.

Since you say you have read those two, you must realize by now that
there are a number of other papers referenced that are also needed in
order to apprehend them well enough to discuss informed opinions about
them. First off, would you be willing to discuss the details of just
these two? I'd like to cover some of the mathematics involved and
some detailed thoughts about the implications within them. I also
think it will be impossible to agree, without digging into many of the
other resources (as well as contacting some of the scientists who are
specialists in varying areas discussed in them), on at least some of
the aspects of these two. So we'd need to work hard and I don't
expect this to handed to either of us on a silver platter or as a
pill. But that's what it takes -- work. Are you willing to do that
with me?

If you are interested in the cyclic nature of arctic ice see:

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401

I'm interested in seeing a cure to profound ignorance speaking here.
That means we each need to _work_ for our opinions. It's the _work_ I
am interested in seeing happen.

Join me?

Jon

Why don't you join us and post something interesting about electronic
design?

Why don't you join us and post something interesting about electronic
design, John?

Note that this rejoinder shows that "interesting" is in the eye of the
beholder. I'm a hobbyist and I want to see _education_, especially
aka the way Winfield Hill would encourage cooperative and creative
approaches on occasion here. You may have other interests. Others,
still others.

Your quip also means nothing about when you are going to _demonstrate_
your interest in seeing climate discussions end here; that it wasn't
just feigned clap-trap. For one, I'd be very glad to see ignorant
climate comments from people who _should_ know better cease here.

Care to lead us to _your_ claimed promised land? Or will this group
remain a vent for fascist political/climate discussion?

Jon

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:21:10 -0800, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:48:26 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:39:23 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:50:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:25:47 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:28:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
1% regulation looks OK to me unless you can show me the design specs.

I gave you a great pair of references which just happen to address
this directly for you and you haven't even bothered to read them.
That's clear. One in 1969 and another 40 years later in 2009 which
supplements the topics, as well as going further. Nice bookends and
you never could have written the above if you so much as had glancing
familiarity with mathematics or had read even one of those two papers.

Just one time I'd like to see a single _informed_ statement from some
naysayer here instead of just pulling numbers out of butts and making
up, entirely out of whole cloth, what the randomly conjured number
then supposedly means in a situation they know nothing about.

Reminds me of a hillbilly joke, but it's too crass to post here.

Jon

Having now had a chance to read these articles I note they are nothing
to do with anthropogenic global warming.

It was about the "1% regulation looks OK" ignorant comment. Now, it
was conditioned by the "design specs" escape clause. But the only way
to get past ignorant comments like this is to ... work hard at gaining
a comprehensive view. The papers I mentioned _do_ help address
getting an education and they do deal with the idea of "regulation" in
a relatively large region of our planetary sphere.

Since you say you have read those two, you must realize by now that
there are a number of other papers referenced that are also needed in
order to apprehend them well enough to discuss informed opinions about
them. First off, would you be willing to discuss the details of just
these two? I'd like to cover some of the mathematics involved and
some detailed thoughts about the implications within them. I also
think it will be impossible to agree, without digging into many of the
other resources (as well as contacting some of the scientists who are
specialists in varying areas discussed in them), on at least some of
the aspects of these two. So we'd need to work hard and I don't
expect this to handed to either of us on a silver platter or as a
pill. But that's what it takes -- work. Are you willing to do that
with me?

If you are interested in the cyclic nature of arctic ice see:

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401

I'm interested in seeing a cure to profound ignorance speaking here.
That means we each need to _work_ for our opinions. It's the _work_ I
am interested in seeing happen.

Join me?

Jon

Why don't you join us and post something interesting about electronic
design?

Why don't you join us and post something interesting about electronic
design, John?

Note that this rejoinder shows that "interesting" is in the eye of the
beholder. I'm a hobbyist and I want to see _education_, especially
aka the way Winfield Hill would encourage cooperative and creative
approaches on occasion here. You may have other interests. Others,
still others.

Your quip also means nothing about when you are going to _demonstrate_
your interest in seeing climate discussions end here; that it wasn't
just feigned clap-trap. For one, I'd be very glad to see ignorant
climate comments from people who _should_ know better cease here.

So *you* are presuming to educate *us*?

Hilarious.

Care to lead us to _your_ claimed promised land? Or will this group
remain a vent for fascist political/climate discussion?

"Fascist" is in the eye of the beholder.

Circuits, on the other hand, either work or don't. Perhaps that's too
rigid a standard for some people.

John

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:39:23 -0800, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:50:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:25:47 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:28:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
1% regulation looks OK to me unless you can show me the design specs.

I gave you a great pair of references which just happen to address
this directly for you and you haven't even bothered to read them.
That's clear. One in 1969 and another 40 years later in 2009 which
supplements the topics, as well as going further. Nice bookends and
you never could have written the above if you so much as had glancing
familiarity with mathematics or had read even one of those two papers.

Just one time I'd like to see a single _informed_ statement from some
naysayer here instead of just pulling numbers out of butts and making
up, entirely out of whole cloth, what the randomly conjured number
then supposedly means in a situation they know nothing about.

Reminds me of a hillbilly joke, but it's too crass to post here.

Jon

Having now had a chance to read these articles I note they are nothing
to do with anthropogenic global warming.

It was about the "1% regulation looks OK" ignorant comment. Now, it
was conditioned by the "design specs" escape clause. But the only way
to get past ignorant comments like this is to ... work hard at gaining
a comprehensive view. The papers I mentioned _do_ help address
getting an education and they do deal with the idea of "regulation" in
a relatively large region of our planetary sphere.

The Earth's temperature has varied over a 1% range over the last
10,000 years, since the end of the last glacial period. Data from
here:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

This assumes The Greenland ice cores are representative of global
temperatures.

My comment was informed not ignorant as you suggested. In fact the
global temperature now is about the average for the holocene period.
That allows for a 1.5C rise in Greenland since the last ice core
sample of 1905.

If you look at the data the there was a temperature rise of about 1C
per century 1200 years ago so even the recent rate of rise in
temperature is not unique for the Christian era let alone the
holocene.

Since you say you have read those two, you must realize by now that
there are a number of other papers referenced that are also needed in
order to apprehend them well enough to discuss informed opinions about
them. First off, would you be willing to discuss the details of just
these two? I'd like to cover some of the mathematics involved and
some detailed thoughts about the implications within them. I also
think it will be impossible to agree, without digging into many of the
other resources (as well as contacting some of the scientists who are
specialists in varying areas discussed in them), on at least some of
the aspects of these two. So we'd need to work hard and I don't
expect this to handed to either of us on a silver platter or as a
pill. But that's what it takes -- work. Are you willing to do that
with me?

I am afraid unlike you I don't have the time for detailed navel gazing
over minor aspects of climate science. Reading this stuff is something
I do for light relief after spending 6 days a week running a business
and working as it's main engineer.

However as far as I am concerned the onus is on the alarmist community
to actually demonstrate that CO2 is the main cause of temperature
rise. Self consistent models don't do it. Various claims of positive
feedback don't do it. And retrospective changes to the temperature
record don't do it.

And it is far to say that the hockey stick is crap science as
climategate and "hide the decline" have shown. If tree rings aren't a
good proxy for temperature since 1960 as they don't agree with teh
instrument record then they are not a good proxy for temperature in
the pre instrument age.

If you are interested in the cyclic nature of arctic ice see:

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401

I'm interested in seeing a cure to profound ignorance speaking here.
That means we each need to _work_ for our opinions. It's the _work_ I
am interested in seeing happen.

Join me?

Jon

It is not profound ignorance as you like to think but a considered
rejection of the claim that "the science is settled". In the end the
basics of climate science are not difficult to understand for an
engineer. It is an affectation of alarmists that it is difficult.

If the "science" hadn't been captured by the socialists/greens as a
means for increasing taxes, social control and social engineering then
most of us wouldn't even be debating it.

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:29:21 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
It is not profound ignorance as you like to think but a considered
rejection of the claim that "the science is settled". In the end the
basics of climate science are not difficult to understand for an
engineer. It is an affectation of alarmists that it is difficult.

If the "science" hadn't been captured by the socialists/greens as a
means for increasing taxes, social control and social engineering then
most of us wouldn't even be debating it.

Bottom line, I take it, is that you won't waste a split second
educating yourself on the topic, but would rather remain ignorant and
instead spout politics, religion, and ideology.

Well, that's about what's happened to the group. So you have your
wish.

Jon