Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On Friday, December 12, 2014 7:49:17 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, 13 December 2014 03:12:49 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
On Friday, December 12, 2014 2:01:15 PM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 12 December 2014 21:46:04 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:33:09 AM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 10/12/2014 3:32 AM, meow...@care2.com wrote:
To: Bill Sloman
On Monday, December 8, 2014 10:50:00 AM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, 8 December 2014 17:31:38 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
On Monday, December 8, 2014 6:14:23 AM UTC, Don Y wrote:
On 12/7/2014 10:22 PM, meow...@care2.com wrote:
snip
In other words you don't like the ideas presented, but can't construct a
counter argument - probably because I'm right, and whenever you try to
construct one of your counter-arguments, you find yourself stuck with a
fallacy at the core of your response.
In other words I've got better things to do than address foolish political views yet again
Nice try. But if you want to label a view either "political" or "foolish" you have to explain why. Since the basic argument about anthropogenic global warming is scientific, you've missed the point that the science is quite solid enough to make both the "denialist" and "it doesn't matter positions" look decidedly foolish.
The only political part in the anthropogenic global warming question is working out how we take the collective action which is obviously necessary.
The people who object to that are objecting to the word "collective" - as far as they are concerned, every problem has to be solved by the application of the free market. They don't seem to have noticed that we can't buy another planet, in the same way that they earlier found it difficult to appreciate that you can't buy another ozone layer, or a new set of lungs if you've wrecked the set you were born with by smoking cigarettes.
Sadly, the foolish political view is all yours.
more naive green-pov.
There's nothing naive about my point of view
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
I've ploughed through the AIP website (and read a lot of printed material on the subject as well).
Since you seem to be a brainwashed right-winger who declines to even try to construct an argument, this really isn't a plausible claim.
You sound like James Arthur, who sets aside a generation of climate science on the basis of what he was told at a dinner party by a failed would-be climate scientist.
It was one of the model-writers, employed by the government on one of the
major climate models at the time--not failed at all--and nothing to do with
a dinner party.
IOW you got every detail wrong, and made several up.
He said the models became uncorrelated with observed reality within a year or
so.
Just looking at the models, anyone can see they're hopelessly naive--they're
not faithful representations of known physical processes. They're collections
of fudge-factors and subjective characterizations.
Go ahead--extrapolate out two centuries. The moon's made of cheese, we're all
under water, and the polar caps exploded. Twice.
Cheers,
James Arthur
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 3:59:22 AM UTC, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, December 12, 2014 7:49:17 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, 13 December 2014 03:12:49 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
On Friday, December 12, 2014 2:01:15 PM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 12 December 2014 21:46:04 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:33:09 AM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 10/12/2014 3:32 AM, meow...@care2.com wrote:
To: Bill Sloman
On Monday, December 8, 2014 10:50:00 AM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, 8 December 2014 17:31:38 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com > > > > > > > >> wrote:
On Monday, December 8, 2014 6:14:23 AM UTC, Don Y wrote:
On 12/7/2014 10:22 PM, meow...@care2.com wrote:
snip
In other words you don't like the ideas presented, but can't
construct a counter argument - probably because I'm right, and
whenever you try to construct one of your counter-arguments, you
find yourself stuck with a fallacy at the core of your response.
In other words I've got better things to do than address foolish
political views yet again
Nice try. But if you want to label a view either "political" or "foolish" you have to explain why. Since the basic argument about anthropogenic global warming is scientific, you've missed the point that the science is quite solid enough to make both the "denialist" and "it doesn't matter positions" look decidedly foolish.
The only political part in the anthropogenic global warming question is working out how we take the collective action which is obviously necessary.
The people who object to that are objecting to the word "collective" - as far as they are concerned, every problem has to be solved by the application of the free market. They don't seem to have noticed that we can't buy another planet, in the same way that they earlier found it difficult to appreciate that you can't buy another ozone layer, or a new set of lungs if you've wrecked the set you were born with by smoking cigarettes.
Sadly, the foolish political view is all yours.
more naive green-pov.
There's nothing naive about my point of view
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
I've ploughed through the AIP website (and read a lot of printed material on the subject as well).
Since you seem to be a brainwashed right-winger who declines to even try to construct an argument, this really isn't a plausible claim.
You sound like James Arthur, who sets aside a generation of climate science on the basis of what he was told at a dinner party by a failed would-be climate scientist.
It was one of the model-writers, employed by the government on one of the
major climate models at the time--not failed at all--and nothing to do with
a dinner party.
Then he got childish
He said the models became uncorrelated with observed reality within a year > > or so.
Just looking at the models, anyone can see they're hopelessly naive--they're
not faithful representations of known physical processes. They're
collections of fudge-factors and subjective characterizations.
Go ahead--extrapolate out two centuries. The moon's made of cheese, we're
all under water, and the polar caps exploded. Twice.
Nice try. But if you want to label a view either "political" or "foolish" you have to explain why. Since the basic argument about anthropogenic global warming is scientific, you've missed the point that the science is quite solid enough to make both the "denialist" and "it doesn't matter positions" look decidedly foolish.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 08:11:08 +0000, alb wrote:
Hi Tim,
Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
[]
The 3kHz limit could reflect the nature of the rotating component in
the particular motor.
Be careful with your terminology. Does Al mean a 3kHz loop bandwidth,
or a 3kHz filter between drive and motor?
The 3KHz are on the loop bandwidth. Apologize if I wasn't clear from the
beginning.
If the latter, I would expect some limitation on harmonic content, not
just something called a "cutoff".
w.r.t. filtering the customer is specifying wants to *avoid* any source
of emission between 5KHz and 50KHz because this is where the scientific
signal will by laying.
When we talked about a 20KHz PWM in our first proposal they saw the risk
and changed the spec to impose a hard notch in that region. That is why
we are somehow obliged to go beyond that notch.
20kHz or so is normal, but you may be able to get by with 60. (or 62.5,
to make the dividers easy). Be sure to either filter it on board, or
check to see that you're not inducing too much loss in the motor.
On Saturday, 13 December 2014 16:24:33 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
Bill has next to no company here that buys into his green views. Its not as if this is a dumb newsgroup.
"No company" is more wishful thinking. The group may not be dumb, but a lot of it is right wing.
Nice try. But if you want to label a view either "political" or "foolish" you have to explain why. Since the basic argument about anthropogenic global warming is scientific, you've missed the point that the science is quite solid enough to make both the "denialist" and "it doesn't matter positions" look decidedly foolish.
Lets examine how scientific:
CO2 levels went up: YES scientific confirmed by measurement
CO2 is green house gas: YES scientific
man is causing CO2 increase: speculation, there are other possible causes
YES, there is a scientific basis for the THEORY AGW, but the conclusions are speculative at best. The theory has not been scientifically proven to be true.
Yes you can trot out a list of scientists that say they believe in AGW, (to keep their jobs) that does not constitute a scientific proof.
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 7:38:54 AM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, 13 December 2014 16:24:33 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
Bill has next to no company here that buys into his green views. Its not as if this is a dumb newsgroup.
"No company" is more wishful thinking. The group may not be dumb, but a lot of it is right wing.
A newgroup mostly of high iq successful people, and nearly all right wing.. What an odd coincidence.
fwiw i said next to no company
On Sunday, 14 December 2014 02:56:39 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 7:38:54 AM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, 13 December 2014 16:24:33 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
Bill has next to no company here that buys into his green views. Its not as if this is a dumb newsgroup.
"No company" is more wishful thinking. The group may not be dumb, but a lot of it is right wing.
A newgroup mostly of high iq successful people, and nearly all right wing. What an odd coincidence.
fwiw i said next to no company
Which isn't accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
is - in part - about the way a bunch of successful high IQ people - "Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, and a few other contrarian scientists" - "joined forces with conservative think tanks and private corporations to challenge the scientific consensus on many contemporary issues".
They were endorsing total nonsense, and presumably knew it - which is more than can be said for the "high IQ" right-winger around here, who mostly haven't heard of the Suess Effect. Why they felt it politically necessary to endorse pro-free market nonsense is spelled out in the book.
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 10:46:28 PM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, 14 December 2014 02:56:39 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 7:38:54 AM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, 13 December 2014 16:24:33 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
Bill has next to no company here that buys into his green views. Its not as if this is a dumb newsgroup.
"No company" is more wishful thinking. The group may not be dumb, but a lot of it is right wing.
A newgroup mostly of high iq successful people, and nearly all right wing. What an odd coincidence.
fwiw i said next to no company
Which isn't accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
is - in part - about the way a bunch of successful high IQ people - "Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, and a few other contrarian scientists" - "joined forces with conservative think tanks and private corporations to challenge the scientific consensus on many contemporary issues".
They were endorsing total nonsense, and presumably knew it - which is more than can be said for the "high IQ" right-winger around here, who mostly haven't heard of the Suess Effect. Why they felt it politically necessary to endorse pro-free market nonsense is spelled out in the book.
the green confusion continues
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 10:55:48 PM UTC, meow...@care2.com wrote:
Bill has next to no company here that buys into his green views. Its not as if this is a dumb newsgroup.
Lets try being real here.
1. Hardly anyone here agrees with your green views
... which begs the question of what. So a few random spur of the moment thoughts:
a lighting control sensor system that reduces domestic & commercial energy use
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 10:55:48 PM UTC, meow...@care2.com wrote:
Bill has next to no company here that buys into his green views. Its not as if this is a dumb newsgroup.
Lets try being real here.
1. Hardly anyone here agrees with your green views
2. Hardly anyone here is going to agree with them
4. This is a group of mainly electrical/electronic engineers. What
could tron engs do that aligns with your views & wishes? Design
devices to save energy, and not design throw away junk. Pretty much
all of us do those already, mostly for other reasons. So what can you
ever gain by arguing here and convincing no-one?
5. If you really want to make a difference for your cause, why not
use your elec eng skills to design something that will achieve that
instead.
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 05:54:06 -0800 (PST), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:
Nice try. But if you want to label a view either "political" or "foolish" you have to explain why. Since the basic argument about anthropogenic global warming is scientific, you've missed the point that the science is quite solid enough to make both the "denialist" and "it doesn't matter positions" look decidedly foolish.
Lets examine how scientific:
CO2 levels went up: YES scientific confirmed by measurement
CO2 is green house gas: YES scientific
man is causing CO2 increase: speculation, there are other possible causes
the climate is changing: speculation, measurements ambiguous
temperature will rise: speculation from unproven simulations
oceans will rise: speculation from simulation
YES, there is a scientific basis for the THEORY AGW, but the conclusions are speculative at best. The theory has not been scientifically proven to be true.
Yes you can trot out a list of scientists that say they believe in AGW, (to keep their jobs) that does not constitute a scientific proof.
Bill,
I do not call you disparaging names, please return the favor.
+1
Nicely done.
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 10:55:48 PM UTC, meow...@care2.com wrote:
Bill has next to no company here that buys into his green views. Its not as if this is a dumb newsgroup.
Lets try being real here.
1. Hardly anyone here agrees with your green views
2. Hardly anyone here is going to agree with them
3. There seems little mileage in debating it with you
4. This is a group of mainly electrical/electronic engineers. What could tron engs do that aligns with your views & wishes? Design devices to save energy, and not design throw away junk. Pretty much all of us do those already, mostly for other reasons. So what can you ever gain by arguing here and convincing no-one?
5. If you really want to make a difference for your cause, why not use your elec eng skills to design something that will achieve that instead.
... which begs the question of what. So a few random spur of the moment thoughts:
a lighting control sensor system that reduces domestic & commercial energy use
an affordable heating control system that considers all available inputs, eg including whether windows & doors are open, and uses passive heating & cooling as part of the operational strategy as well as active heat.
a lower energy appliance
a better light bulb
etc etc
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 7:05:51 PM UTC-5, meow...@care2.com wrote:
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 10:55:48 PM UTC, meow...@care2.com wrote:
Bill has next to no company here that buys into his green views. Its not as if this is a dumb newsgroup.
Lets try being real here.
1. Hardly anyone here agrees with your green views
2. Hardly anyone here is going to agree with them
3. There seems little mileage in debating it with you
4. This is a group of mainly electrical/electronic engineers. What could tron engs do that aligns with your views & wishes? Design devices to save energy, and not design throw away junk. Pretty much all of us do those already, mostly for other reasons. So what can you ever gain by arguing here and convincing no-one?
5. If you really want to make a difference for your cause, why not use your elec eng skills to design something that will achieve that instead.
... which begs the question of what. So a few random spur of the moment thoughts:
a lighting control sensor system that reduces domestic & commercial energy use
an affordable heating control system that considers all available inputs, eg including whether windows & doors are open, and uses passive heating & cooling as part of the operational strategy as well as active heat.
a lower energy appliance
a better light bulb
etc etc
But you're missing a critical fact, which--in all seriousness--is that
Bill's philosophy only entails things other people must do.
Here's a bit of a hoot--the NREL insolation predictions are done with
climate cloud models, and, NREL says their net insolation results are
only believed good to 10%.
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar_map_development.html
+/-10% is +/-100W/m^2 !!!
IOW, global climate models don't even know how much sun hits the ground.
Nice try. But if you want to label a view either "political" or "foolish" you have to explain why. Since the basic argument about anthropogenic global warming is scientific, you've missed the point that the science is quite solid enough to make both the "denialist" and "it doesn't matter positions" look decidedly foolish.
Lets examine how scientific:
CO2 levels went up: YES scientific confirmed by measurement
CO2 is green house gas: YES scientific
man is causing CO2 increase: speculation, there are other possible causes
the climate is changing: speculation, measurements ambiguous
temperature will rise: speculation from unproven simulations
oceans will rise: speculation from simulation
YES, there is a scientific basis for the THEORY AGW, but the conclusions are speculative at best. The theory has not been scientifically proven to be true.
Yes you can trot out a list of scientists that say they believe in AGW, (to keep their jobs) that does not constitute a scientific proof.
Bill,
I do not call you disparaging names, please return the favor.
Mark
+1
On Sunday, 14 December 2014 11:05:51 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 10:55:48 PM UTC, meow...@care2.com wrote:
Bill has next to no company here that buys into his green views. Its not as if this is a dumb newsgroup.
Lets try being real here.
1. Hardly anyone here agrees with your green views
Don't be stupid. I'm not green - but I do object to being taken for a sucker.
Several regular posters here are suckers for denialist propaganda, and dislike being characterised as gullible.
2. Hardly anyone here is going to agree with them
Quite a few do, but don't make a fuss about it.
3. There seems little mileage in debating it with you
When the debater hasn't heard of the Suess Effect, they are wasting their time trying to debate a subject they know very little about - ignorant assertions don't cut much ice.
4. This is a group of mainly electrical/electronic engineers. What could tron engs do that aligns with your views & wishes? Design devices to save energy, and not design throw away junk. Pretty much all of us do those already, mostly for other reasons. So what can you ever gain by arguing here and convincing no-one?
I'm not arguing to get anybody to do anything. The limit of my ambitions is to discourage John Larkin from picking up denialist nonsense from The Register and other right-wing media and posting links to it here.
He'd have to learn critical thinking before he could do that reliably, so it's not an ambition which I expect to achieve.
5. If you really want to make a difference for your cause, why not use your elec eng skills to design something that will achieve that instead.
I can't see that there's much a market for my skills - I do test this proposition from time to time, but I've not had a job interview for several years - which is unsurprising for a 72-year-old, if irritating.
... which begs the question of what. So a few random spur of the moment thoughts:
a lighting control sensor system that reduces domestic & commercial energy use
Nowhere near as effective as more efficient light sources, which Philips is now pushing, big-time.
an affordable heating control system that considers all available inputs, eg including whether windows & doors are open, and uses passive heating & cooling as part of the operational strategy as well as active heat.
You'd have to put sensors - and probably activators - on your doors and windows, and it will be a while before that happens.
a lower energy appliance, a better light bulb, etc etc
There are several "better light bulbs" around. They cost a lot to develop, and sell in millions. Not a hobbyist project. I did try to get a job with that branch of Philips in the Netherlands a few years ago, but Philips personnel officers think that elderly people can't learn anything new - as one told me, to my face, in Nijmegen in 2000, shortly before I went off to Venlo and started measuring the conductivity of aqueous solutions for the first time in my life, where I sorted out a problem which had baffled a bunch of sub-contract electronic designers. To be fair to the sub-contractors, Haffmans did want measurements over a one-thousand-to-one range of conductivity, and one of them did eventually turn my solution into a working product.
On Sunday, December 14, 2014 4:10:32 AM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
The story isn't in the least confusing, and more than it's green. It isn't all that edifying either, but you seem to be blind to moral aspects of lying for short-term financial advantage.
too much bullshit
most snipped
On Sunday, December 14, 2014 4:33:01 AM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, 14 December 2014 11:05:51 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 10:55:48 PM UTC, meow...@care2.com wrote:
Bill has next to no company here that buys into his green views. Its not as if this is a dumb newsgroup.
Lets try being real here.
1. Hardly anyone here agrees with your green views
Don't be stupid. I'm not green - but I do object to being taken for a sucker.
Several regular posters here are suckers for denialist propaganda, and dislike being characterised as gullible.
2. Hardly anyone here is going to agree with them
Quite a few do, but don't make a fuss about it.
3. There seems little mileage in debating it with you
When the debater hasn't heard of the Suess Effect, they are wasting their time trying to debate a subject they know very little about - ignorant assertions don't cut much ice.
4. This is a group of mainly electrical/electronic engineers. What could tron engs do that aligns with your views & wishes? Design devices to save energy, and not design throw away junk. Pretty much all of us do those already, mostly for other reasons. So what can you ever gain by arguing here and convincing no-one?
I'm not arguing to get anybody to do anything. The limit of my ambitions is to discourage John Larkin from picking up denialist nonsense from The Register and other right-wing media and posting links to it here.
He'd have to learn critical thinking before he could do that reliably, so it's not an ambition which I expect to achieve.
5. If you really want to make a difference for your cause, why not use your elec eng skills to design something that will achieve that instead.
I can't see that there's much a market for my skills - I do test this proposition from time to time, but I've not had a job interview for several years - which is unsurprising for a 72-year-old, if irritating.
... which begs the question of what. So a few random spur of the moment
thoughts: a lighting control sensor system that reduces domestic &
commercial energy use
Nowhere near as effective as more efficient light sources, which Philips is now pushing, big-time.
an affordable heating control system that considers all available inputs, eg including whether windows & doors are open, and uses passive heating & cooling as part of the operational strategy as well as active heat.
You'd have to put sensors - and probably activators - on your doors and windows, and it will be a while before that happens.
a lower energy appliance, a better light bulb, etc etc
There are several "better light bulbs" around. They cost a lot to develop, and sell in millions. Not a hobbyist project. I did try to get a job with that branch of Philips in the Netherlands a few years ago, but Philips personnel officers think that elderly people can't learn anything new - as one told me, to my face, in Nijmegen in 2000, shortly before I went off to Venlo and started measuring the conductivity of aqueous solutions for the first time in my life, where I sorted out a problem which had baffled a bunch of sub-contract electronic designers. To be fair to the sub-contractors, Haffmans did want measurements over a one-thousand-to-one range of conductivity, and one of them did eventually turn my solution into a working product..
Getting a job has nothing to do with it.