Driver to drive?

[John Fields]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:20:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

It's just that I relate more to Jews than to Christians ;-)

---
I feel the same tug.

--
John Fields

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:51:54 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

Jim Douglas wrote:
Canada is not far from most places in the US, also Mexico is missing quite a
few folks, if these places don't suit you Europe is available for about
$299.00. Move somewhere for four years then come back and let us know what
you think!



Nah=- you've got that wrong. What's going to happen is we herd all you
Bush freaks into dumps like Wyoming and call it Jesusland- a new
independent country of delusional idiots.

Oh yeah? You and what Army?

John

 

[James Knott]

Scott Stephens wrote:

If there isn't a God, maybe we will just rot, and never see our dead
loved ones again, and we might as well lie, cheat steel and kill each
other?

And if you think you're going to see them and discover it's all a hoax?
As for the other, treating others properly has nothing to do with religion.
Over the centuries, the church has done more than it's share of lies,
stealing and murder. Even today, you've got plenty of people, who are
ready to kill others, over something as stupid as religious belief.

"God" and all that goes with religion is absolute B.S..

 

[James Knott]

Scott Stephens wrote:

Someone recently told me, that only "Christians" could be moral.

Since, from a common evangelical Christian perspective, God created the
universe and is owner of it, to not believe in and comply with the
creator's will is immorality.

It's still B.S..

 

[WayneL]

Hi Boer,
Thanks for responding.
Have you got an explanation for the difference in frequencies for the two
metals? e.g. why are they different if the electrode are of the same size?
Also the paper mentions that other metal were tested and they also showed to
have different frequencies. Have you got this data to hand?

Wayne





"boer" <nanos04@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:7e6dnRj8ZOTHGW_cRVn-1Q@adelphia.com...

WayneL wrote:
Hi

I have read a paper on Fabrication of highly ordered metallic nanowire
arrays by electrodeposition by Yin a Brown University, US. See link for
a copy of the paper.
http://optonano.engin.brown.edu/Publications/APL01039.pdf

This paper discusses, among other things, the deposition of Bi and Ni to
produce nanowires.

Yin grew nickel and bismuth nano-wire using AC electrodeposition for
applications of high density recording devices and sensors. Yin used an
AAO (self-ordered anodised aluminium oxide) film as the cathode and a
graphite bar as the anode. He states that electrodeposition of metal
into the porous alumina film directly following anodisation can take
place only under AC conditions. Producing either Bi or Ni nano-wires
required different conditions.
Yin also found that the frequency range used also affected the results
produced. Another point worth noting is that high quality deposition of
Ni could be obtained with AC frequencies from 10 to 750 Hz and for Bi the
optimum frequency range was between 10 and 100 Hz. He commented that
this was probably due to the double layer. However, if the double layer
is the main factor dictating the frequency response then surely the
frequency he stated would be a function of the electrode size? Thus his
figure are arbitrary as they do not have any dimensional data. And if he
did use the same size electrodes for both Bi and Ni deposition why would
the frequencies be different? Surely the double layer capacitance is the
same for both metals or am I missing something here or is the double
layer capacitance a function of the metal's atomic number? One thing
that is obvious is that Bi(83) is significantly heavier than Ni (28).

Could somebody possible help clear this up for me.

Cheers

Wayne


The use of AC voltage is to overcome the barrier layer at the bottom of
the pores during the fabrication process, as stated in the paper. The
thinness/thickness of this non-porous layer presents a difficulty in DC
plating of the nanopores. This is *not* the double layer capacitance per
your post. The paper does discuss barrier thinning voltages compared to
older methods using dilute phosphoric acid etching to thin this physical
barrier layer. Yes, our lab did indeed find differences in AC plating
frequencies of nanopores dependent on the metal to be deposited.

boer

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:13:38 -0500, James Knott
<james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:

Scott Stephens wrote:

If there isn't a God, maybe we will just rot, and never see our dead
loved ones again, and we might as well lie, cheat steel and kill each
other?

And if you think you're going to see them and discover it's all a hoax?
As for the other, treating others properly has nothing to do with religion.
Over the centuries, the church has done more than it's share of lies,
stealing and murder. Even today, you've got plenty of people, who are
ready to kill others, over something as stupid as religious belief.

"God" and all that goes with religion is absolute B.S..

I think religion has been a moderating force against naturally savage
impulses. People who blame religion are in fact complaining that it
hasn't done a perfect job, that fairly often the savagery has
subverted and co-oped religion.

Nearly all religions teach humility before and service in the name of
some god, and that doen't always go over well.

John

 

[John Larkin]

You sound like an ex-neighbor of mine, who opined, while eating lunch
at my house, that she couldn't understand why my children were so
well-behaved, since they didn't go to church, or believe in god.

I told her to depart my premises, never to return ;-)

That was rude to a guest. Miss Manners would *not* approve. Sounds
like your kids have better manners than you do.

Someone recently told me, that only "Christians" could be moral.

My kid took a course in comparative religion at her Jesuit high
school, and they didn't teach her any such thing.


John

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:02:45 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:19:16 -0800, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:


"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:42t2v0llgtqfhpu9ejuc4co5dq6rp216qa@4ax.com...
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:16:29 +0100, Rene Tschaggelar <none@none.net
wrote:

Mark Jones wrote:

So what will the AmeriKan dollar be worth in 4 more years? Anyone?
And to think, some call that "progress." Yeah!

My guess : 40-60% of what it is now.
Well, at least it pays their debt nicely.
Or as the americans put it : it makes them again
credit worthy. Don't think twice - get that money
immediately.

Rene

What a stupid statement. EuroPeons won't be able to sell any goods.
What do you think that will do to Europe?

Force them to sell the BMWs to China?


The latest scandal is Europe forcing the Thais to buy a bunch of the
new big Airbus monsters, on penalty of increased duties on Thai fish.

John

How is that a scandal? The US just imposed massive protectionist
tariffs (as high more than 100% in some cases) on some Thai fishing
product on behalf of domestic special interests (the "Southern Shrimp
Alliance"). The Europeans have a big unified market and are willing to
cut a deal with state-operated airlines and sacrifice some of their
fishing business (Norway). Sounds like a good deal for both sides to
me. The Thais have to buy the planes from foreigners anyway, why not
buy the most efficient ones and keep their people working?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[James Knott]

John Larkin wrote:

I think religion has been a moderating force against naturally savage
impulses. People who blame religion are in fact complaining that it
hasn't done a perfect job, that fairly often the savagery has
subverted and co-oped religion.

Nearly all religions teach humility before and service in the name of
some god, and that doen't always go over well.

Some religion may be good metaphor, but it's still fiction.

 

[Parse Tree]

Clarence_A wrote:

"DW" <DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106343743.567899.251800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

The term "liberal" gets thrown a lot.

I saw something a while back that I like to cite w
when someone slames liberals.

1. Thank a liberal when you go to the grocery store
and find that it is illegal for them to sell that
peice of meat that went rancid a month ago.
2. Thank a liberal when you go to the emergency room
and they treat your heartt attack right away. There was a time
when an ermergency room could decline treatment if you
couldn't afford it and they would throw you out in the street.
So what if you died.
3. If you're a woman thank a liberal that your
husband can't beat you. Believe it or not there was
a time when it was legal for a husband to beat his
wife in the US.



Thank a liberal when you get your tax bill and you have to sell
the house to pay the tax. Then state and federal Income tax
reduces the net from the home sale to a level below what you would
need to put a down payment on a mobile home. And all the license
fees go up each year.

Bless a liberal, send them to hell!
They can party there without hurting anyone!

Taxes are really not very onerous at all. People in the US can be such
babies about them.

 

[Aunty Kreist]

"Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com> wrote in message
news:10v4q08l2uko27e@corp.supernews.com...

"Aunty Kreist" <Aunty_Kreist@satanickittens.net> wrote in message
news:35dav3F4hnim8U1@individual.net...

"Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com> wrote in message
news:10v24i518cs2n0a@corp.supernews.com...
Look! You made him CRYYYYYYYYYYYYYY, AK! Priceless!

Hee hee!

John's a funny guy, I give him credit for being entertaining.

If utterly balless. When's he gonna go meet his gawd and prove us all
wrong?

Doesn't he remind you a lot of Littleshoes? Very similar.

 

[Aunty Kreist]

"Noah Roberts" <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:10v3ckpraj628e7@corp.supernews.com...

Aunty Kreist wrote:
"Noah Roberts" <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:10v0nllrtle3j26@corp.supernews.com...

Aunty Kreist wrote:

just doing you the service of showing you all what a nutjob Fields is.



And we are indebted to you for your forsight and providing us with such
educational material indeed.


Hee hee! I aim to please.



Riddle me this: What sound does a turd make when it falls out of your
ass and into the toilet?

Answer: *plonk*

 

[Aunty Kreist]

"Noah Roberts" <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:10v3ckpraj628e7@corp.supernews.com...

Aunty Kreist wrote:
"Noah Roberts" <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:10v0nllrtle3j26@corp.supernews.com...

Aunty Kreist wrote:

just doing you the service of showing you all what a nutjob Fields is.



And we are indebted to you for your forsight and providing us with such
educational material indeed.


Hee hee! I aim to please.



Riddle me this: What sound does a turd make when it falls out of your
ass and into the toilet?

Answer: *plonk*

Bye!

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:22:01 -0500, James Knott
<james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

I think religion has been a moderating force against naturally savage
impulses. People who blame religion are in fact complaining that it
hasn't done a perfect job, that fairly often the savagery has
subverted and co-oped religion.

Nearly all religions teach humility before and service in the name of
some god, and that doen't always go over well.

Some religion may be good metaphor, but it's still fiction.

Dignity, consciousness, human rights, love may all be fiction. We live
for fiction.

John

 

[keith]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:07:21 -0600, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:20:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:


It's just that I relate more to Jews than to Christians ;-)

---
I feel the same tug.

I dated a Jew in high school. He mother did *not* approve. I ended up
marrying one of her friends.

--
Keith

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:11:21 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:30:59 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

---
A baseball bat's not alive,

But a baseball bat was made from a tree, that was.

---
Yes, and the tree it came from and the life it gave up to become a
baseball bat should be respected,

Why?

---
Because without that life you would have nothing. No carrot, no
baseball bat, nothing.
---

---
I'm not talking about its feelings, I'm talking about its being alive.

I know, but you have gave no rational reason why "alive" is relevant to
the issue. Bacteria is alive, but we don't care about them.

---
Certainly we do. A great deal. What makes you think we don't?
---

Again, if it don't have feelings, why should we care? It certainly cant.
Come on now, Produce a reason.

---
Come on, yourself. I've already given you several and still it
doesn't seem you're capable of understanding them, so you're either
actively keeping it from sinking in (NIH) or you have a learning
disability.
---

Left to its own devices, a P4 is incapable of having goals.

So is a carrot. A real goal, is an aspect of consciousness.

---
Why is a carrot's goal to achive adult carrothood any less real than
yours was to become an adult human while you were in that area you
choose to call "without consciousness"? It isn't.

Thats correct. It isnt.

---
Yes, Kevin, I know.
---

Unconscious goals are simple *not* sufficient to delimit life. We
need more.

---
Delimit? In which way are you using the term?
---


decide, chose...

---
Garbage, then.

Not at all. You 101 logic seems a problem.

---
For you, perhaps. The point is that organisms which have had life
imbued into them and then proceed on their way toward their destiny
don't need to _choose_ whether to accept or choose life, it was
something over which they had no control.
---

Without unconscious goals there would be no life here
as we know it since there would be no way to achieve sentience.
---

I agree that without unconscious goals there would be no consciousness.
Consciousness is the tip of the ice burg of unconscious behaviour.

---
In what way? Be specific.
---

I don't really see that your sentence here makes any sense. What's your
point?

---
Basically, that you can't put the cart before the horse.
---

Essentially objective? If they're not totally objective, and factual,
then they're merely opinions.

They are "essentially" objective because, based on axioms, they *are*
objective. However axioms themselves can't always be. The axioms are our
starting point, which can introduce an element of subjectivity.

---
A castle built on a foundation of straw?
---

---
Really? Give me an example where consciousness exists without life
behind it.

That's not the point.

---
LOL! Since you can't cite an example,

Of course I cant. Science is not sufficiently advanced to create
artificial consciousness. However, there is nothing in science that
prohibit such a situation.

and you just can't bear to admit
that you can't, you skirt the issue.

Dont be daft.

---
I catch you in a subterfuge and I'm daft? LOL!
---

The point _is_, Kevin, that
consciousness can't exist without life driving it,

Prove it.

---
Now _that's_ daft! To do a proof by exhaustion I'd have to kill every
conscious entity on this earth and note that it was no longer
conscious after it stopped being alive. How much simpler it would be
for you to find a _single_ example to refute my claim.
---

and if you can't
refute that statement with fact, then the statement stands.

Nonsense.

---
Prove it.
---

I would say that most involved in neural research accept the strong
possibility of artificial consciousness.

---
I subscribe to the _inevitability_ of the creation of artificial
consciousness.
---

There doesn't seem to be
anything inherently special about the materials that make the brain up.

---
Nothing inherently special, but there do seem to be materials which
are peculiar to the brain and its environs.
---

---
Fine, but for the time being, it's life that's driving that
electrochemical process that's allowing life to drive that
electrochemical process thats...

I Just knew you were going to weasel with this idea. This is besides the
point. I don't have any issue with the Darwinian machine of replication,
selection and generation of traits being the cause of all consciousness.
So what.

"Life" as I belive you take is, a simple Darwinian prosee and is not
sufficient, in my book, or any rational book, enough to uniquely define
something as human/animal, i.e. an entity that should be respected for
its own sake.

---
Weasel? I didn't bring up Darwin in order to sidestep the issue which
is, basically, that without life consciousness can't exist. The
respect for life is an altogether different issue and has to do with
simple reducto ad absurdium, the gist of it being that life is
precious and should be conserved because if it isn't, death is the
_inevitable_ end. Of course is anyway, as far as we know, but how
tragic it would be if we found we had thrown something away which
removed the inevitability. YMMV...
---

I just see this "life" idea as misguided, for historical and religious
reasons. Its based on ideas that consider certain bunches of chemicals
more special then others. I see no justification for this sort of
arbitrary distinction.

---
You "see" this "life" idea as misguided for your own convenience,
perhaps in an attempt to justify a series of abortions you felt
necessary to have performed for your own ends? While I agree that
there may be no inherent "specialness" between two bunches of inert
chemicals, a bunch of chemicals that is alive is certainly more
special than a bunch that isn't.
---

We have a much better justifiable distinction now. Its consciousness.
Its just unfortunate that few appreciated this, again, mostly due to
erroneous religious faiths.

---
A much more _convenient_ excuse for unjustifiably taking life is more
like it.

And, Kevin, who the hell do you think you are (or anyone is) to be the
judge of which religious faiths are "erroneous" and which aren't???
---

"It is not what we are made of that makes us, its how what makes us
is arranged"

---
Sure, but so what? That hasn't been news since 1953.

Well, why dont you take note of it.

---
Lame, Kevin.
---

Oh dear... Look, millions take Prozac. It makes them *feel* better.
Hence our feelings are effected by chemicals. We measure electrical
impulse when someone feels pain. We can artificially induce out of body
experience, bright lights, etc. There are millions of cause and effect
experiments done every day, like drinking a pint of Guinness. All of
this is in support to the view that it is electrochemical process that
make as completely what we are.

The alternative that our minds is not just the result of the
electrochemical process of the brain has no evidence to support it
whatsoever. All you doing is a cop out. Like, well, we dont know 100%
sure, its only 99.9999999%. Yeah, get real dude.

We are a biological machine. Its that simple. Its something you should
learn to accept. Its the way it truly is.

---
In order to try to cloud the issue and take the advantage, you keep
trying to pretend that I've, somehow, stated that that isn't true. If
you can, I'd like to see where you can find that I stated that we're
not machines.
---

A "fact" in science is what is perceived to be true beyond all
reasonable measures of verification. Like, its a fact that Clinton got a
BJ from that intern.

---
Since you weren't there to witness it, it's your _opinion_ that she
gave him head.

A _fact_ is that life precedes consciousness. Do the experiment any
number of times for verification, the result will always be the same.

--
John Fields

 

[Aunty Kreist]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:vjr4v058p9og52nee9e4bf6rd96cpthmm4@4ax.com...

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:15:50 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com
wrote:

I am saying that you and ALL your fellow zealots should kill one another
off
and leave the planet in more capable hands. Is that dumbed down enough
for
you, idiot?

---
Unhappy she is
because there is no way out
unless she's alone.

--
John Fields

Ok, Yoda.
Spare us the prose. >_<

 

[Aunty Kreist]

"Parse Tree" <account@domain.extension> wrote in message
news:_szId.1243818$lR6.188303@news.easynews.com...

Aunty Kreist wrote:
"Rich The Philosophizer" <rtp@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2005.01.21.10.57.38.491510@example.net...

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:09:00 -0700, uvcceet wrote:


In <ik60v05pjc0hs834ar5hf33ra4pnctfgro@4ax.com>, on 01/20/05
at 02:57 PM, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> said:



BTW, have you got a clue about the origin of the universe?


Well, for those who do religion, we know that God didn't create the
universe, because the Hebrew text quite clearly says that He ORGANIZED

it,

not created it.

For those who get a kick out of the big bang idea, well, if the
universe
encompasses everything and yet it is expanding, I can't figure out what

it

is supposedly expanding into.

I would say that I have never met or read anyone whom I considered
anywhere near smart enough to come up with the answer to that.

I suppose you will enlighten us, if we want to know, or not?

This guy claims to be pretty smart:
http://www.godchannel.com

Good Luck!
Rich

Malignant spyware on this site. You spam this link constantly here, are
you
a shill for Mr. Lucas?

Aren't you using Firefox?

Don't worry, I use protection. I always wear a condom, and pull out too.

There's others that may not know, durr!

 

[Aunty Kreist]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:Jum3dWB9as8BFwc+@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Aunty Kreist <Aunty_Kreist@satanic
kittens.net> wrote (in <35fsbgF4n2g8cU1@individual.net&gt about
'Peterson's Death Sentence', on Sat, 22 Jan 2005:

What exactly do you think would happen to all these babies if abortion
were made illegal?

The majority would probably be aborted with a non-sterile knitting-
needle. Or gin and pennyroyal.

You're right, and that's just damn scary.

People seem to be under the impression that women think nothing of just
trouncing off and getting an abortion. Well, NO WOMAN *wants* to have one.
it's not something one wishes to happen. It's a result of desperation and
much thought. It's not a decision that is easily come to. To put some sort
of immoral stamp onto a women who is a victim of circumstance, or an
accident, whatever, just isn't logical.

Do you know that in Communist Russia abortions are safe, legal, and easy to
obtain?

Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Parse Tree]

Noah Roberts wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

This "even" bit


There isn't such a thing. Bits are either 1 or zero. One is not
divisable by 2 and neither is 0.

Zero is definitely an even number. And it is divisible by 2.