Driver to drive?

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:50:16 -0800, JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:22:00 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:05:27 -0300, YD <ydtechHAT@techie.com> wrote:

Late at night, by candle light, Arlowe <bare.arsed@gmail.com> penned
this immortal opus:

krw used his keyboard to write :
In article <mn.a5307d9188b78d0d.90583@gmail.com>,
bare.arsed@gmail.com says...
krw explained on 19/01/2009 :
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:35:00 +1100, Arlowe <bare.arsed@gmail.com
wrote:

on 16/01/2009, Paul supposed :
On Jan 15, 2:19 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Paul" <energymo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:54c2d7cf-c506-4647-b272-17d608c8854a@x8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

I'm testing a new DMM I purchased, AM-240 by Amprobe. It claims *over*
100Mohm impedance in 400.0mV mode.

Nothing new there, many DMM's have selectable "high impedance" or "HI-Z"
modes on the mV range. e.g. the Fluke 87.


I've looked at the specs of ~ 30 DMM's today, include a lot of
fluke's, and never seen anything near 14Gohms impedance. Keithley has
an electrometer that's probably higher. Most DMM's are around 10Mohms
(not gigaohms) input impedance. Don't you think 14 gigaohms is a bit
high?

PL

The evil thing about Voltmeters with very high impedance is they will
read induced voltages that analog meters wouldn't.
It makes a voltmeter useless for checking for live circuits in a
crowded panel.

A craftsman never blames tools for his failures. Hackers, on the
other hand...

If you work with electricity you had better know the limitations of
your tools or you will find them...the hard way.

That is certainly true (though perhaps your heirs are the ones who
will find you), but doesn't modify my statement. In this case, the
tool *can* be used as long as the one using it knows what he's
doing.

Ok....everything seems to pass right over your head....
I pointed out a limitation of a DMM and you seem to be inferring that I
am somehow a hack who blames his tools...
BTW> I am not a "craftsman" I am an electrcian..
You don't do what I do for as many years as I have without knowing what
the fuck you are doing.


What's wrong with using a hi Z voltmeter in a live panel? I do it more
often than I really care for, and never have a problem.

There isn't anything wrong with it. Analog meters are dead. High
impedance digital meters are only a problem if there is a loose nut
inside the panel, holding the leads.

I noted the lack of distinction between animate and metallic nuts.
Metallic?
 
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:46:29 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:50:16 -0800, JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:22:00 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:05:27 -0300, YD <ydtechHAT@techie.com> wrote:

Late at night, by candle light, Arlowe <bare.arsed@gmail.com> penned
this immortal opus:

krw used his keyboard to write :
In article <mn.a5307d9188b78d0d.90583@gmail.com>,
bare.arsed@gmail.com says...
krw explained on 19/01/2009 :
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:35:00 +1100, Arlowe <bare.arsed@gmail.com
wrote:

on 16/01/2009, Paul supposed :
On Jan 15, 2:19 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Paul" <energymo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:54c2d7cf-c506-4647-b272-17d608c8854a@x8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

I'm testing a new DMM I purchased, AM-240 by Amprobe. It claims *over*
100Mohm impedance in 400.0mV mode.

Nothing new there, many DMM's have selectable "high impedance" or "HI-Z"
modes on the mV range. e.g. the Fluke 87.


I've looked at the specs of ~ 30 DMM's today, include a lot of
fluke's, and never seen anything near 14Gohms impedance. Keithley has
an electrometer that's probably higher. Most DMM's are around 10Mohms
(not gigaohms) input impedance. Don't you think 14 gigaohms is a bit
high?

PL

The evil thing about Voltmeters with very high impedance is they will
read induced voltages that analog meters wouldn't.
It makes a voltmeter useless for checking for live circuits in a
crowded panel.

A craftsman never blames tools for his failures. Hackers, on the
other hand...

If you work with electricity you had better know the limitations of
your tools or you will find them...the hard way.

That is certainly true (though perhaps your heirs are the ones who
will find you), but doesn't modify my statement. In this case, the
tool *can* be used as long as the one using it knows what he's
doing.

Ok....everything seems to pass right over your head....
I pointed out a limitation of a DMM and you seem to be inferring that I
am somehow a hack who blames his tools...
BTW> I am not a "craftsman" I am an electrcian..
You don't do what I do for as many years as I have without knowing what
the fuck you are doing.


What's wrong with using a hi Z voltmeter in a live panel? I do it more
often than I really care for, and never have a problem.

There isn't anything wrong with it. Analog meters are dead. High
impedance digital meters are only a problem if there is a loose nut
inside the panel, holding the leads.

I noted the lack of distinction between animate and metallic nuts.

Metallic?
Spell checkers are not perfect. Nor are engineers.
 
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:50:29 -0800 (PST), Daniel
<nidan.danny@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 19, 7:06 am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:35:00 +1100, Arlowe <bare.ar...@gmail.com
wrote:





on 16/01/2009, Paul supposed :
On Jan 15, 2:19 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Paul" <energymo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:54c2d7cf-c506-4647-b272-17d608c8854a@x8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

I'm testing a new DMM I purchased, AM-240 by Amprobe. It claims *over*
100Mohm impedance in 400.0mV mode.

Nothing new there, many DMM's have selectable "high impedance" or "HI-Z"
modes on the mV range. e.g. the Fluke 87.

I've looked at the specs of ~ 30 DMM's today, include a lot of
fluke's, and never seen anything near 14Gohms impedance. Keithley has
an electrometer that's probably higher. Most DMM's are around 10Mohms
(not gigaohms) input impedance. Don't you think 14 gigaohms is a bit
high?

PL

The evil thing about Voltmeters with very high impedance is they will
read induced voltages that analog meters wouldn't.
It makes a voltmeter useless for checking for live circuits in a
crowded panel.

A craftsman never blames tools for his failures.  Hackers, on the
other hand...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is an oft used but seldom understood saying. The reason a
craftsman supposedly never blames his tools is because a craftsman
tends to buy quality tools in the first place.
No supposedly about it.

Much more importantly, the craftsperson knows the tools limitations
and does not expect the tool to make up for any lack of skill on the
craftsperson's part. And to bludgeon the point home, normally can
make any tool(s) needed for task at hand.
 
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:25:36 -0800 (PST), bud-- <budnews@isp.com>
wrote:

On Jan 25, 1:08 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
bud-- wrote:

On Jan 23, 6:13 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:28:44 -0800 (PST), bud-- <budn...@isp.com> wrote:
The meter must be designed
to safely fail on those circuits.

High impedance DMMs "safely fail" on ALL equipment as well.

Only if they are designed for high energy circuits.

And no, it matters not that there is a high current capacity available.

It matters greatly that there is high current capacity available.

There is a meter classification based on available current. (Category
1, 2, 3; probably from the IEC.)

So, you don't use current transformers or clamp on AC ammeters?

It should be clear the discussion is about high available fault
current - the current you get when the source is short circuited. This
is a really basic concept in design and protection of high current AC
power circuits. (But it may not be something you have run across.)

High available fault current can result in arc flash. Arc flash can
result in major injury and death in addition to major equipment
destruction.
It is not just about current. I have seen plenty of systems capable
of 2000 A and more at 24 V and less and there is no arc flash hazard
present. It is much more about transient energy capability and total
power available. I have reviewed such calculations once, i will have
to do it again. See NFPA 70E which is about how to do the analysis
and set up the appropriate protection measures including personal
protective equipment and personal protective clothing. For the reason
to do the study see 40 CFR 1926.

Arc-flash is estimated to kill 200-300 people a year.
OSHA has made arc-flash an issue. Safety protection may require
wearing an arc-flash suit.
I doubt that the annual death toll is that high, though it is
certainly not zero. I hear of about 1 or 2 a year, there may well be
more that i do not hear of.

One of the smartest electricians I know was seriously injured by arc
flash. And it was through an equipment failure - he made no mistake.

If you are in the workplace and covered by (US)OSHA usingthe wrong
type of meter could be real expensive.

If you are working in dangerous locations without the proper training
you are likely to die. If you are properly trained, the company
supplies the proper equipment needed to do the work.
snip

The issue I raised is appropriate meters. As I wrote above, the IEC
has measurement Categories I-IV. If working in high energy locations,
like panel boards and services, the appropriate meters are Cat III and
IV. These meters are designed for the riskier environment and have
better transient withstand and fusing.

My analog Triplett 310 has a glass fuse. I have a Beckman digital that
has a similar fuse. They might be safe in Cat I. My Fluke is rated Cat
III and IV. That includes transient withstand well above the nominal
voltage rating and high interrupt capacity fuses.

OSHA might be real displeased if the wrong meter was used. And when
OSHA is unhappy you might be unhappy.


If you didn’t assume everyone else was an idiot you might actually
learn something. (But probably not Archimedes.)
 
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:23:02 +1100, Arlowe <bare.arsed@gmail.com>
wrote:

Archimedes' Lever brought next idea :
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:43:27 +1100, Arlowe <bare.arsed@gmail.com> wrote:

BTW> I am laughing *at* you...

I love it when wankers like yourself loose control.

You think I give a fat flying fuck what you are jacking off to?

Fuck off are low.

No, this is fun.
Do all of you NASA Super-duper electronics wizzers use that sort of
language? Is "fat flying fuck" a technical term?

Oh yeah, that "are-low" thing...having a play on words? Because of My
name right? Arlowe = "are low" now that's comedy right there.
I see you have had a dance with the local curse troll. Most here
either ignore it or kill file it and all its nyms.
 
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:20:16 -0800, JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:23:02 +1100, Arlowe <bare.arsed@gmail.com
wrote:

Archimedes' Lever brought next idea :
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:43:27 +1100, Arlowe <bare.arsed@gmail.com> wrote:

BTW> I am laughing *at* you...

I love it when wankers like yourself loose control.

You think I give a fat flying fuck what you are jacking off to?

Fuck off are low.

No, this is fun.
Do all of you NASA Super-duper electronics wizzers use that sort of
language? Is "fat flying fuck" a technical term?

Oh yeah, that "are-low" thing...having a play on words? Because of My
name right? Arlowe = "are low" now that's comedy right there.


I see you have had a dance with the local curse troll. Most here
either ignore it or kill file it and all its nyms.

You're a goddamned retard, notsoquietnotatechfool.
 
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:43:02 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Arlowe wrote:

Michael A. Terrell formulated the question :
bud-- wrote:

On Jan 27, 12:14 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
bud-- wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Is it a phantom voltage?

Easy enough to identify.

Even easier for Arloe.


Proof that its easier for him?


The appropriate tools start with a well trained brain. Otherwise,
you are a monkey throwing crap at the problem.
How fortunate that Arloe and Stewart and I are well educated and know
what we are doing.

Sure you are. Yet you can't figure out how to do it without a dumbed
down tool.

It’s the favorite nobody-knows-anything-but-Michael argument.

Not the issue, of course. Any tool can be used. The question is what
is appropriate and efficient. High z meters do not help you on power
circuits, but you can use what you want. Arloe is entirely reasonable
to use a low z meter.


You are starting to sound like your hero, the cut & paste 'surge
protector W_Tom'.

Arloe can use anything he wants to. No one else cares, but a lot of
what he posts is old wives tales.

Bullshit. Prove me wrong.

It is not uncommon to read mains voltage, not some BS 83VAC like some
have referred to, but MAINS VOLTAGE on a conductor that is isolated.

When you have a panel where the active cables are segregated form the
neutrals, you can get very strong, alternating magnetic fields
depending on the current draw.

If you put an isolated cable in that field you will measure voltage on
that cable with a DMM. An electrician can not rely on reading an
"incorrect" voltage as an assurance that the cable is dead. He has to
be able to PROVE IT.
Some will use an analog meter, I don't, I use test lamps that have the
correct CAT rating for the enviroment. I follow up by testing my lamps
on a "known supply" ie. a supply that I verified live before I
performed any testing, just to prove the test lamps are functionimg as
intended.

Call it crude, I don't give a fuck, it works, it is failsafe and it is
fast.


So does a screwdriver against the case, and to a buss bar, but I won't
do it.
Poxy hell. Step back Mike. I am not ready to believe you are that
damn ignorant about arc flash hazards yet.
 
JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:43:02 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Arlowe wrote:

Michael A. Terrell formulated the question :
bud-- wrote:

On Jan 27, 12:14 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
bud-- wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Is it a phantom voltage?

Easy enough to identify.

Even easier for Arloe.


Proof that its easier for him?


The appropriate tools start with a well trained brain. Otherwise,
you are a monkey throwing crap at the problem.
How fortunate that Arloe and Stewart and I are well educated and know
what we are doing.

Sure you are. Yet you can't figure out how to do it without a dumbed
down tool.

It’s the favorite nobody-knows-anything-but-Michael argument.

Not the issue, of course. Any tool can be used. The question is what
is appropriate and efficient. High z meters do not help you on power
circuits, but you can use what you want. Arloe is entirely reasonable
to use a low z meter.


You are starting to sound like your hero, the cut & paste 'surge
protector W_Tom'.

Arloe can use anything he wants to. No one else cares, but a lot of
what he posts is old wives tales.

Bullshit. Prove me wrong.

It is not uncommon to read mains voltage, not some BS 83VAC like some
have referred to, but MAINS VOLTAGE on a conductor that is isolated.

When you have a panel where the active cables are segregated form the
neutrals, you can get very strong, alternating magnetic fields
depending on the current draw.

If you put an isolated cable in that field you will measure voltage on
that cable with a DMM. An electrician can not rely on reading an
"incorrect" voltage as an assurance that the cable is dead. He has to
be able to PROVE IT.
Some will use an analog meter, I don't, I use test lamps that have the
correct CAT rating for the enviroment. I follow up by testing my lamps
on a "known supply" ie. a supply that I verified live before I
performed any testing, just to prove the test lamps are functionimg as
intended.

Call it crude, I don't give a fuck, it works, it is failsafe and it is
fast.


So does a screwdriver against the case, and to a buss bar, but I won't
do it.

Poxy hell. Step back Mike. I am not ready to believe you are that
damn ignorant about arc flash hazards yet.

I'm not. I was pointing out that it can cause the same damage.
Anything to create the initial plasma will cause the same thing,
including fuses with too low of an extinguishing voltage, or an idiot
sparky who uses damaged test leads. I always though it was odd that
electronics techs use well insulted probes, while sparkies use crap
probes with a lot of exposed metal. Let one of his test lamps short and
he can see the fireball that erupts, if he lives long enough. He talks
about not understanding dangerous test methods, yet he uses one himself.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
 
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:03:48 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:


I've snipped the rest of Graham's post - his abbreviated version of
the article is still a lot longer than anyone in their right mind
would bother reading.
---
Since you must have read it in order to decide what to snip, that speaks
volumes about the state of _your_ mind.
---

As usual, Graham has latched onto the opinions of an isolated and
eccentric figure,
---
Had he latched onto yours, however, He'd be OK, even though you,
yourself, are an isolated and eccentric figure...


JF
 
On 2 feb, 15:41, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:03:48 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
I've snipped the rest of Graham's post - his abbreviated version of
the article is still a lot longer than anyone in their right mind
would bother reading.

---
Since you must have read it in order to decide what to snip, that speaks
volumes about the state of _your_ mind.
---
My mind wasn't in a great state by time I'd finished plowing through
it. The tedium was relieved by occasional moment of hilarity, but you
have to know quite a bit to find Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner funny, and the
occasional absurdity certainly didn't justify the slog.

As usual, Graham has latched onto the opinions of an isolated and
eccentric figure,

---
Had he latched onto yours, however, He'd be OK, even though you,
yourself, are an isolated and eccentric figure...
If I lived in Texas, I probably would be. Happily, I inhabit a more
congenial environment, where habits like reading serious books for
pleasure aren't seen as strange.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 07:45:03 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:23:53 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


JeffM wrote:

Ross Herbert wrote:
And if by some human error, a legitimate caller is included in the black list,
and upon hearing the loud message or being diverted to police/FBI,
then complains to the communications regulating authority,
how are you going to explain that you have connected
a possibly unauthorised piece of equipment to the telco line?

Since deregulation in the 1980s,
there's almost nothing you can't hook to your phone line in the USA.
The exception is an fully-automated spam call maker
--and it being illegal
doesn't seem to stop the douchebags from doing that anyway.



I'd like to get my hands on the SOBs running the ones for Obama. I'm
tired of having the damn things wake me up. It would be a case of
justified homicide.

I'm mulling over a design for a box that blanks the first ring, reads
the CID... no match to addressbook = continues to blank ring and lets
it roll into VM (legitimate caller, cold caller won't wait that long).

800, 877, etc... short line to "answer" call with dead air ;-)

I'll need help from a person experienced with uP's. I can manage the
analog.

...Jim Thompson
From a persistent nightmare, I conclude filtering CID with the
following set of rules... stops at first match from top...

(1) Matches Allowed Names (for rule #1), allows access to voice mail
(2) Time-out (e.g. no rings allowed 7PM - 6AM)
(3) Matches Allowed Names (for rule #3), allows access to voice mail
(4) Hard Rejection List, answer, then immediate hangup, add tone ?:)
(5) Rejection with Message #1
(6) Rejection with Message #2

Haven't decided contents of Message #1, or Message #2, but need some
way to handle emergencies, doctors, new business... like there's going
to be any in this administration :-(

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food
 
On Feb 2, 10:00 am, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On 2 feb, 15:41, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:03:48 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
I've snipped the rest of Graham's post - his abbreviated version of
the article is still a lot longer than anyone in their right mind
would bother reading.

---
Since you must have read it in order to decide what to snip, that speaks
volumes about the state of _your_ mind.
---

My mind wasn't in a great state by time I'd finished plowing through
it. The tedium was relieved by occasional moment of hilarity, but you
have to know quite a bit to find Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner funny, and the
occasional absurdity certainly didn't justify the slog.

As usual, Graham has latched onto the opinions of an isolated and
eccentric figure,

---
Had he latched onto yours, however, He'd be OK, even though you,
yourself, are an isolated and eccentric figure...

If I lived in Texas, I probably would be. Happily, I inhabit a more
congenial environment, where habits like reading serious books for
pleasure aren't seen as strange.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Instead of insulting the individuals who don't agree with you, can you
point out a factual error in Morners interview..

Mark
 
On 2 feb, 19:18, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:00 am, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:





On 2 feb, 15:41, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:03:48 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
I've snipped the rest of Graham's post - his abbreviated version of
the article is still a lot longer than anyone in their right mind
would bother reading.

---
Since you must have read it in order to decide what to snip, that speaks
volumes about the state of _your_ mind.
---

My mind wasn't in a great state by time I'd finished plowing through
it. The tedium was relieved by occasional moment of hilarity, but you
have to know quite a bit to find Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner funny, and the
occasional absurdity certainly didn't justify the slog.

As usual, Graham has latched onto the opinions of an isolated and
eccentric figure,

---
Had he latched onto yours, however, He'd be OK, even though you,
yourself, are an isolated and eccentric figure...

If I lived in Texas, I probably would be. Happily, I inhabit a more
congenial environment, where habits like reading serious books for
pleasure aren't seen as strange.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Instead of insulting the individuals who don't agree with you, can you
point out a factual error in Morners interview..
I wouldn't deny you the pleasure of finding one for yourself. Have
fun.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
makolber@yahoo.com wrote:

On Feb 2, 10:00 am, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On 2 feb, 15:41, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:03:48 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

As usual, Graham has latched onto the opinions of an isolated and
eccentric figure,
And a VERY clever one at that. Not one to be easily fooled.


Had he latched onto yours, however, He'd be OK, even though you,
yourself, are an isolated and eccentric figure...

If I lived in Texas, I probably would be. Happily, I inhabit a more
congenial environment, where habits like reading serious books for
pleasure aren't seen as strange.

Instead of insulting the individuals who don't agree with you, can you
point out a factual error in Morners interview..
That's not Bill or indeed the entire AGW believers' way.

Graham
 
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On 2 feb, 19:18, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:

Instead of insulting the individuals who don't agree with you, can you
point out a factual error in Morners interview..

I wouldn't deny you the pleasure of finding one for yourself. Have
fun.
In other words, no you can't.

Sea level is falling globally btw.

Graham
 
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On 3 feb, 02:05, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
makol...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:00 am, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On 2 feb, 15:41, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:03:48 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

As usual, Graham has latched onto the opinions of an isolated and
eccentric figure,

And a VERY clever one at that. Not one to be easily fooled.

Had he latched onto yours, however, He'd be OK, even though you,
yourself, are an isolated and eccentric figure...

If I lived in Texas, I probably would be. Happily, I inhabit a more
congenial environment, where habits like reading serious books for
pleasure aren't seen as strange.

Instead of insulting the individuals who don't agree with you, can you
point out a factual error in Morners interview..

That's not Bill or indeed the entire AGW believers' way.

You've got a short memory, Graham. Remember your factually erroneous
claim that the current high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were
caused by CO2 coming out of solution in the oceans as they warmed up,
rather than becasue we were burning fossil carbon.

That factual error got pointed out fast enough - few of the denialist
are silly enough to make such an obvious error, though Ravinghorde has
managed to dig out a few who have been almost as stupid.
How do you intend to PROVE I'm wrong. All you have are wild assertions.

Graham
 
On 3 feb, 02:05, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
makol...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:00 am, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On 2 feb, 15:41, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:03:48 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

As usual, Graham has latched onto the opinions of an isolated and
eccentric figure,

And a VERY clever one at that. Not one to be easily fooled.

Had he latched onto yours, however, He'd be OK, even though you,
yourself, are an isolated and eccentric figure...

If I lived in Texas, I probably would be. Happily, I inhabit a more
congenial environment, where habits like reading serious books for
pleasure aren't seen as strange.

Instead of insulting the individuals who don't agree with you, can you
point out a factual error in Morners interview..

That's not Bill or indeed the entire AGW believers' way.
You've got a short memory, Graham. Remember your factually erroneous
claim that the current high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were
caused by CO2 coming out of solution in the oceans as they warmed up,
rather than becasue we were burning fossil carbon.

That factual error got pointed out fast enough - few of the denialist
are silly enough to make such an obvious error, though Ravinghorde has
managed to dig out a few who have been almost as stupid.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On 3 feb, 02:05, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
makol...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:00 am, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On 2 feb, 15:41, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:03:48 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
As usual, Graham has latched onto the opinions of an isolated and
eccentric figure,
And a VERY clever one at that. Not one to be easily fooled.

Had he latched onto yours, however, He'd be OK, even though you,
yourself, are an isolated and eccentric figure...
If I lived in Texas, I probably would be. Happily, I inhabit a more
congenial environment, where habits like reading serious books for
pleasure aren't seen as strange.
Instead of insulting the individuals who don't agree with you, can you
point out a factual error in Morners interview..
That's not Bill or indeed the entire AGW believers' way.

You've got a short memory, Graham. Remember your factually erroneous
claim that the current high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were
caused by CO2 coming out of solution in the oceans as they warmed up,
rather than becasue we were burning fossil carbon.

That factual error got pointed out fast enough - few of the denialist
are silly enough to make such an obvious error, though Ravinghorde has
managed to dig out a few who have been almost as stupid.

How do you intend to PROVE I'm wrong. All you have are wild assertions.
The CO2 in solution in the oceans has a different isotopic signature to
the fossil fuel CO2 component that we are adding the the atmosphere. CO2
dissolved in water under pressure can be a significant reservoir. It
occasionally goes pear shaped in some deep volcanic pools with the
shaken lemonade bottle instability after an earthquake.

Anyway the latest paramagnetic methods can measure the corresponding
decrease in oxygen content of the atmosphere to 6 sig fig now. There is
no doubt at all that the increasing CO2 is from us burning fossil fuels.

It is possible to show that the rate of increase in CO2 build up in the
atmosphere is still less than the amount we are pumping out. In other
words more CO2 is dissolving into the oceans than is leaving them. This
is confirmed by oceanic pH acidity measurments (bad for some corals).

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
On 3 feb, 05:13, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On 3 feb, 02:05, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
makol...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:00 am, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On 2 feb, 15:41, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:03:48 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

As usual, Graham has latched onto the opinions of an isolated and
eccentric figure,

And a VERY clever one at that. Not one to be easily fooled.

Had he latched onto yours, however, He'd be OK, even though you,
yourself, are an isolated and eccentric figure...

If I lived in Texas, I probably would be. Happily, I inhabit a more
congenial environment, where habits like reading serious books for
pleasure aren't seen as strange.

Instead of insulting the individuals who don't agree with you, can you
point out a factual error in Morners interview..

That's not Bill or indeed the entire AGW believers' way.

You've got a short memory, Graham. Remember your factually erroneous
claim that the current high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were
caused by CO2 coming out of solution in the oceans as they warmed up,
rather than becasue we were burning fossil carbon.

That factual error got pointed out fast enough - few of the denialist
are silly enough to make such an obvious error, though Ravinghorde has
managed to dig out a few who have been almost as stupid.

How do you intend to PROVE I'm wrong. All you have are wild assertions.
You may think so. More objective observers think differently.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 07:45:03 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:


On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:23:53 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


JeffM wrote:

Ross Herbert wrote:

And if by some human error, a legitimate caller is included in the black list,
and upon hearing the loud message or being diverted to police/FBI,
then complains to the communications regulating authority,
how are you going to explain that you have connected
a possibly unauthorised piece of equipment to the telco line?

Since deregulation in the 1980s,
there's almost nothing you can't hook to your phone line in the USA.
The exception is an fully-automated spam call maker
--and it being illegal
doesn't seem to stop the douchebags from doing that anyway.



I'd like to get my hands on the SOBs running the ones for Obama. I'm
tired of having the damn things wake me up. It would be a case of
justified homicide.

I'm mulling over a design for a box that blanks the first ring, reads
the CID... no match to addressbook = continues to blank ring and lets
it roll into VM (legitimate caller, cold caller won't wait that long).

800, 877, etc... short line to "answer" call with dead air ;-)

I'll need help from a person experienced with uP's. I can manage the
analog.

...Jim Thompson


From a persistent nightmare, I conclude filtering CID with the
following set of rules... stops at first match from top...

(1) Matches Allowed Names (for rule #1), allows access to voice mail
(2) Time-out (e.g. no rings allowed 7PM - 6AM)
(3) Matches Allowed Names (for rule #3), allows access to voice mail
(4) Hard Rejection List, answer, then immediate hangup, add tone ?:)
(5) Rejection with Message #1
(6) Rejection with Message #2

Haven't decided contents of Message #1, or Message #2, but need some
way to handle emergencies, doctors, new business... like there's going
to be any in this administration :-(

...Jim Thompson
FIRST: hard rejection list with NO answer; 3 magic tones and immedite
hangup.
What would be perfect but impossible, is present the 3 magic tones
and immedite hangup *before* the Y-rated caller dials...
Y-rated? Not even fit for adults!
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top