Driver to drive?

[Eeyore]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Free will, essentially by definition, is the ability of an object, an "I" to
make a decision that "I" wants. The fact that an aspect of free will is non
predictability i.e. not determinism, does *not* imply that it must be
random. Free will is the ability to chose for oneself. If the choice is
random, than there is no choice. This is trivially obvious.

If free will doesn't exist then who's making the decisions ?

Does a God (say) WANT wars, famine and blight for example ?

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:43:33 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Rich the Philosophizer wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day it happened Rich Grise wrote

You're denying Free Will. "quantum randomness" is a term used by
"sciencists" to rationalize away the fact that everything has Free Will.

I am not so sure about 'free will'.
I think that idea is more of a religion.

No, in fact, it's almost diametrically opposite to religion. Religions
are invested in denial of Free Will - that's why they want to rule you.

My brother-in-law just gave me a briefing on Sarah Palin. Is she really that
dreadful ? It made my blood run cold.

Graham

Sarah is cool. We're not afraid of smart, funny, competent women here.

John

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Consider that brains that evolved as hunters and gatherers are also
capable of differential calculus, reading at 400 wpm, designing
electronics, building and flying jet planes...

The thing that fascinates me is that of all the animals on the planet only humans can
communicate as effectively as we do.

I've seen clear examples of animals *want* to communicate better but without speech they're
in trouble. I did get to understand a bit of 'cat language' but it's quite restricted it
seems. They certainly know how to say NO though !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

miso@sushi.com wrote:

I didn't want to get into it. but some speak designs start their HF
rolloff at 10KHz deliberately. Most people can't stand the tsst tsst
tsst sound of many tweeters.

They just have lousy tweeters then. My gold foil leaf tweeters (similat somewhat to a ribbon design)
are a delight to listen to, open and 'airy'.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day it happened Rich Grise wrote

You're denying Free Will. "quantum randomness" is a term used by
"sciencists" to rationalize away the fact that everything has Free Will.

I am not so sure about 'free will'.
I think that idea is more of a religion.

No, in fact, it's almost diametrically opposite to religion. Religions
are invested in denial of Free Will - that's why they want to rule you.

My brother-in-law just gave me a briefing on Sarah Palin. Is she really that
dreadful ? It made my blood run cold.

Sarah is cool. We're not afraid of smart, funny, competent women here.

Who want to teach Creationism in school and believe in the ultimate battle of
Good vs Evil ?

I'd say she's a raving crackpot.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Jamie wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

I can state without hesitation, that the idea of a mass shell enclosing this
universe, does not fit the observations. Its the actual technical details
that matttter, not some ad-hoc well maybe...

That's a shame.

I always though of the Universe as being a bit like some kind of an experiment
in a 'goldfish bowl' sitting on God's ? coffee table.

Tea table don't you mean?

Since when did the British give up tea and start being
socialistic with coffee?

I have never drunk tea other than flower and fruit teas. It always tasted of dead
leaves to me which isn't very appealing. I'd say coffee was more popular here now.

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 02:02:39 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day it happened Rich Grise wrote

You're denying Free Will. "quantum randomness" is a term used by
"sciencists" to rationalize away the fact that everything has Free Will.

I am not so sure about 'free will'.
I think that idea is more of a religion.

No, in fact, it's almost diametrically opposite to religion. Religions
are invested in denial of Free Will - that's why they want to rule you.

My brother-in-law just gave me a briefing on Sarah Palin. Is she really that
dreadful ? It made my blood run cold.

Sarah is cool. We're not afraid of smart, funny, competent women here.

Who want to teach Creationism in school and believe in the ultimate battle of
Good vs Evil ?

Where did the universe come from anyhow?

You can't distinguish between good things and evil things? Then why
does anything matter?

I'd say she's a raving crackpot.

I'd sure rather have lunch with her than anybody else in the race. She
and McCain are genuine; Obama and Biden are fakes through and through.

John

 

[Jamie]

Eeyore wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:


I can state without hesitation, that the idea of a mass shell enclosing this
universe, does not fit the observations. Its the actual technical details
that matttter, not some ad-hoc well maybe...


That's a shame.

I always though of the Universe as being a bit like some kind of an experiment
in a 'goldfish bowl' sitting on God's ? coffee table.

Graham

Tea table don't you mean?

Since when did the British give up tea and start being
socialistic with coffee?


http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

 

[JosephKK]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:32:50 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
<null@example.net> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:10:14 -0700, mpm wrote:

Maybe the moral to the story is: Be careful what you wish for.

I never wanted it in the first place, and I strenuously object to
being required to shell out my hard-earned bucks to make some
nincompoop richer.

Thanks,
Rich

Awwww. So now you must suicide.

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day it happened Rich Grise wrote

You're denying Free Will. "quantum randomness" is a term used by
"sciencists" to rationalize away the fact that everything has Free Will.

I am not so sure about 'free will'.
I think that idea is more of a religion.

No, in fact, it's almost diametrically opposite to religion. Religions
are invested in denial of Free Will - that's why they want to rule you.

My brother-in-law just gave me a briefing on Sarah Palin. Is she really that
dreadful ? It made my blood run cold.

Sarah is cool. We're not afraid of smart, funny, competent women here.

Who want to teach Creationism in school and believe in the ultimate battle of
Good vs Evil ?

Where did the universe come from anyhow?

I long ago ceased worrying about it. I'm sure neither Yahweh nor Allah nor any other
deity was responsible.

You can't distinguish between good things and evil things?

Sure I can. My stepmother wanted my father to join a coven of black witches. He told
me probably because there was no-one else he could turn to on such a matter. There's
no doubt she was evil.

Then why does anything matter?

But why does she want a war 'between good and evil' when her perception of evil is
coloured by a rigidly fundamentalist religious outlook. No better than Usama bin
Laden in my book.

I'd say she's a raving crackpot.

I'd sure rather have lunch with her than anybody else in the race. She
and McCain are genuine; Obama and Biden are fakes through and through.

I'd reckon I'd trust McCain but not with her at his side. Obama has AIUI been
criticised for weak policy statements. In a rapidly changing world that may give him
the edge, instead of being sunk by erroneous election 'committments'.

Graham

 

[JosephKK]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:29:03 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:
On Oct 23, 11:21 am, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
On 2008-10-21, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net> wrote:

a crap picture.
A year ago it used to be 'nearly acceptable' now it's not even nearly.
Constant freezing, blocking out, loss of sound, paint-it-by-numbers colours
and Max Headroom staccatos.
An inbuilt tendency to conspiracy theory has deduced I'm losing bit
bandwidth to that HD thing the broadcasters seem to be pushing. They switch
off analogue in a couple of months, the telly's (and STBs) look like they'll
be heading down the council recycling centre at the same time.
I wonder who voted for that crap,
the decendants of those who chose NTSC before colour TV was mature.

I always believed that Never Twice (the) Same Color (sic) was well
named and that the color instablity was an intrinsic problem with the
modulation technology until I lived in Japan where they correctly
implemented the NTSC specification. Flesh tones of US newscasters
drifting between Addams family green and purple tinges was most
entertaining. The improvement that clamped flesh tones to dead flesh
orange was even funnier.


It was not an intrinsic problem. Our NTSC color TV works just fine.
Always did. We live in an area of heavy and time-varying multipath
distortion yet the colors are always crisp and never run away.

And this _is_ in the US.

[...]

You must be a young pup. My memory of the early days is quite diff
rent. Hell, with a small effort i can timeline the changes that
helped make it what it is today. But this NG ain't worth it today.

 

[JosephKK]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:29:03 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:
On Oct 23, 11:21 am, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
On 2008-10-21, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net> wrote:

a crap picture.
A year ago it used to be 'nearly acceptable' now it's not even nearly.
Constant freezing, blocking out, loss of sound, paint-it-by-numbers colours
and Max Headroom staccatos.
An inbuilt tendency to conspiracy theory has deduced I'm losing bit
bandwidth to that HD thing the broadcasters seem to be pushing. They switch
off analogue in a couple of months, the telly's (and STBs) look like they'll
be heading down the council recycling centre at the same time.
I wonder who voted for that crap,
the decendants of those who chose NTSC before colour TV was mature.

I always believed that Never Twice (the) Same Color (sic) was well
named and that the color instablity was an intrinsic problem with the
modulation technology until I lived in Japan where they correctly
implemented the NTSC specification. Flesh tones of US newscasters
drifting between Addams family green and purple tinges was most
entertaining. The improvement that clamped flesh tones to dead flesh
orange was even funnier.


It was not an intrinsic problem. Our NTSC color TV works just fine.
Always did. We live in an area of heavy and time-varying multipath
distortion yet the colors are always crisp and never run away.

And this _is_ in the US.

[...]

Your memory is different than mine. I clearly remember the weird
color shifts and other complaints of the early days.

 

[JosephKK]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:33:24 -0500, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote:

"ehsjr" <ehsjr@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:_99Lk.2532$Rx2.274@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Jon Slaughter wrote:
Is there a cheap source for fiber optic that is't used for communication
but lighting? I need it in small lengths(< 1 in but of course I can cut
it) and don't mind imperfections. In fact I imagine even scrap would
work. 1mm to 2mm in diameter too.


Although need it without the sheath or some easy way to remove it. Would
be nice if it had a coating on it so I could handle it but a very thin
one that was bonded to the fiber)

Thanks,
Jon

http://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/prodinfo.asp?number=G755

HTH

If only I knew the diameter ;/

Generally, for lighting, the bigger the better, until the size causes
problems.

 

[Eeyore]

Joel Koltner wrote:

"john jardine" <john.jardine@idnet.co.uk> wrote

A year ago it used to be 'nearly acceptable' now it's not even nearly.
Constant freezing, blocking out, loss of sound, paint-it-by-numbers colours
and Max Headroom staccatos.

Sounds like you're suffering from heavy multi-path distortion just like Joerg
is. If it's dynamically changing multipath, all the signal strength in the
world won't help, and the receivers' "echo cancellers" aren't fact enough to
track it and remove it. Result: Poor picture quality.

Thank God for cable, although even that went all 'blocky' a day or two ago.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:10:25 -0700) it happened Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in
EWoLk.5945$Ws1.4494@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>:

This neighbor literally told me: "Before they switched to GSM it always
worked". But his clients all have his cell numbers so he had no choice
but to put up a makeshift roof antenna. I wonder how it will survive the
winter storms out here.

GSM here does not 'always' work.
I have for example an 'Orange' (that is service provider) GSM,
and it did not really work here indoors.
I called their helpdesk, and they told me: 'We do not guarantee indoor use'.
So much for that
Am using it as PDA now..... The calender and alarm are great.
For reliable GSM I have to climb the stairs, and phone from there.
But I am way at the end of the world.

In the UK, Orange in noted for poor service, incompetence etc.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Martin Brown wrote:

It is a bit worrying that electronics engineers are having trouble
getting adequate performance out of dtv. What chance the general
public?

I think it's good. Maybe they'll start reading again and their brains might come
alive.

Graham

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:47:07 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"


Unfortunately, non specialist star gazers have this idea that any old
possibility *they* dream up, is a real possibility.

Tell me John, do you really believe that professional phd
astronomers and professional astrophysicists are so completely
clueless as to not have thought of such a trivial obvious potential
explanation?

---
Well, so far they seem to be in the dark about what's causing the red
shift acceleration, and about 96% of the other shit that's going on in
the universe,

Yes. It is an unknown.

and my hypothesis at least hints at an explanation.

It doest, as it does not agree with the actual details of observations.

Beside, I talked it over with Hal Puthoff a year or so ago, and he
liked it.

Yeah...right....

This is the issue
on the physics NGs, the "Einstein was wrong" brigade give no credit
to experts that have studied this stuff for 20+ years. Like, as if
they wouldn't also have similar ideas. Its not credible or
reasonable.

---
Because one disagrees with a hypothesis doesn't mean it's
unreasonable, it just means that one thinks it's implausible.

But as Richard Dawkins points out,. all opinion are *not* equal.

The probability, today, of a novice, uneducated in standard physics, having
anything relevent to say, is 0.0000000000001%. Sorry, but this is just the
way it.

The field is way too technical, with way too many truly clever people
already looking at the problem 150 years ago, almost no one had a PhD in
physics, and physics didn't too know much.

I don't care much for the theatricals of the "Einstein was wrong
brigade",

but wasn't Eistein part of the "Newton was wrong" brigade in his own
way?

Einstein was a professional physicist, and Newton wasn't "wrong", he's
approximations were approximations. Conservation of momentum is still as
true today, as then.

I can state without hesitation, that the idea of a mass shell
enclosing this universe, does not fit the observations.

---
You can state it without hesitation, but unless you can explain how
the _observation_ that the red shift accelerates with distance
doesn't agree with the hypothesis that a huge gravitational
attraction from an external source is the cause of the acceleration,
the statement is baseless.
---

Not at all. If I recall correctly, I already had that same daft idea, and
posted the question to the one of the physics NGs some while back, and got
an answer from a noted expert as to the folly of such a suggestion. Noting
that I am not totally ignorant of such matters in general
(http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html).

Its the actual technical details
that matttter, not some ad-hoc well maybe...

---
In the end, yes, but it all starts with an ad-hoc well maybe.

Don't you think that some time elapsed between Einstein's first
inkling that matter and energy were two sides of the same coin and
his formal E = MC˛?

Einstein was not the first to propose such a relation.

No point. Already in contradiction to the known facts.

---
Hmmm...
Sounds like something Galileo was forced to listen to.

If you want to re-write everything that is currently consider astrophysics,
sure.

Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Eeyore wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Free will, essentially by definition, is the ability of an object,
an "I" to make a decision that "I" wants. The fact that an aspect of
free will is non predictability i.e. not determinism, does *not*
imply that it must be random. Free will is the ability to chose for
oneself. If the choice is random, than there is no choice. This is
trivially obvious.

If free will doesn't exist then who's making the decisions ?

No one. the universe is a machine that undertakes actions for no purpose at
all.

There is a Darwinian Machine, that externally acts as a black box that is
conceivable, indistinguishable externally as entity that makes decisions.
That's about it.

Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:43:33 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Rich the Philosophizer wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day it happened Rich Grise wrote

You're denying Free Will. "quantum randomness" is a term used by
"sciencists" to rationalize away the fact that everything has
Free Will.

I am not so sure about 'free will'.
I think that idea is more of a religion.

No, in fact, it's almost diametrically opposite to religion.
Religions are invested in denial of Free Will - that's why they
want to rule you.

My brother-in-law just gave me a briefing on Sarah Palin. Is she
really that dreadful ? It made my blood run cold.

Graham

Sarah is cool. We're not afraid of smart, funny, competent women here.

John

Oh Dear... Sarah palin is a complete and utter numpty. It is seriously
frightening to even consider that she could be the boss of the US. She is a
women that likes to shop, expensively, that's about it.

I am absolutely stunned by your view here John . Is this a wind up?

Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 24 Oct 2008 21:58:48 GMT) it happened Rich the
Philosophizer <rtp@example.com> wrote in
<pan.2008.10.24.22.58.20.863584@example.com>:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:08:23 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Hey, I just decided not to start in a fight 'yes there is' 'no there is
not', but as people might be interested in a scientific way to look at
free will, here is a link that talks about that experiment I was referring
to:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-560149/So-free-really-just-illusion.html

Here's an experiment you can do while sitting at your computer, and you
can find out for yourself if Free Will exists:
http://www.godchannel.com/runenergy.html

And truly, what harm could it do to try the experiment? (other than the
danger that you'll find out that your dogma is in error.)

Sound like my old Yoga book....
I tried every excercise in it, realised kundalini, left my body,
came back and had dinner.
;-)