Driver to drive?

[krw]

On Mon, 4 May 2009 10:33:18 -0700 (PDT), silverbeetle@net1plus.com
wrote:

On May 4, 1:46 am, alertj...@rediffmail.com wrote:
Based on trends in mask and design costs for standard cells, vs. FGPA
capabilities, do
you believe the number of new designs per year executed in standard
cells will increase
or decrease in the future as compared with a baseline of 2007 ?

I think it will increase, what do you think ?

Neither.

The ever-increasing costs of mask sets for any kind of custom chip and
the ever-increasing cost of getting decent cost and performance out of
FPGAs will lead to more hybrid pattern-able custom chips: SoCs with
hard-coded processor / DSP / memory / standard peripheral cores but
with final metal mask(s)- or fuse- or flash- programmable logic cell
and/or analog array areas for specific applications.

You're already seeing that, though DSPs not so much. Everyone has
soft core and hard core processors of various stripes depending on
needs. RAM/ROM in single and dual ports have been everywhere for a
decade. User flash is available on several models. The FPGA fabric
just begs to do the DSP type work so I don't see too much there.
Peripherals, except for ubiquitous things like USB, won't find their
way into hard macros either. Hardware accelerators, such as DDR, QDR,
and other SerDes interfaces already have.

Vendors that
cover as much application / volume space as possible with the least
investment and best service (models, tool chains, prototype
turnaround, application support, etc.) will be the big winners (as in
every other generational transition of semi-custom silicon product).
Think Microchip (or higher-order) with FPGA and/or programmable analog
blocks.

They might be the "winners" but there will be many. The real money is
in the niches. 'X', 'A', and 'a' have a *pile* of money tied up in
the things you cite.

 

[krw]

On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:47:49 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

On Sun, 03 May 2009 22:46:44 -0700, alertjean wrote:

Based on trends in mask and design costs for standard cells, vs. FGPA
capabilities, do
you believe the number of new designs per year executed in standard
cells will increase
or decrease in the future as compared with a baseline of 2007 ?

I think it will increase, what do you think ?

Frankly, I think this sounds suspiciously like a homework question.

If it is, there is nothing to be learned at that school.

 

[Joel Koltner]

"krw" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:2vbvv4po4abu94v2esih37eojqr0ce40kv@4ax.com...

There is real money to be made in niches. One could argue that that
*is* where the money is. Competition, and all.

Particularly if you're small. It's no surpise that only two (or maybe three,
if you count Actel) companies have the vast majority of the FPGA market.

Coke <--> Xilinx
Pepsi <--> Altera
Dr. Peppet <--> Actel
RC <--> Lattice (maybe Cypress?)

 

[Tim Williams]

On May 4, 11:07 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

555 timer could do it, but I have a load of those 12Fsomething PICs, and
no 555s, so why not use the PIC?

*NO* 555's!? How is that possible? Don't they like... give you a
lifetime supply with your degree or something? (Maybe they
should! )

I do not see what people have against PICs, programmable logic, you see
people here make huge complex circuits with 7400 series or even CD400 series,
or whatever, as solutions to some question.
Was it you who did a z80 setup to just display some 7 segment data while
a PIC<-- could do it faster cheaper and better?

'Twas I. But I have a load of those Z084something Z80s, and no PICs,
so why not use the Z80? ;-)

My other excuse is, this is actually my first fairly large
breadboarded digital project (no, I haven't already breadboarded an
IBM compatible or anything!). So I have the double excuse of
experience to use this.

As far as PLDs and such, they're fairly nice. I've used a MAX7k CPLD
before (just for pissy labwork stuff- VHDL 7 segment decoder and that
sort of thing), and it's certainly as programmable as it's supposed to
be. Looked it up on Digikey though- still going for 50 bucks each.
I'm not entirely sure just how much can fit inside a CPLD (I know it
has a good 60-some odd I/O pins, and a fairly good combinational logic
capacity, but not many flip-flops in this one), but for any of the
logic purposes I've developed so far, I can't at all imagine using one
instead of maybe 10-20 logic chips at a tenth the price. There's just
no comparison there. (No size / placement costs in homebrew,
remember!)

Tim

 

[William Hughes]

On May 4, 9:11 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:

riverman wrote:
On May 4, 8:10 pm, Nick <3-nos...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> writes:
riverman wrote:
On May 3, 10:17 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Mark-T wrote:
DId anyone here see the problem presented in
the Science section of NY Times last week?
Quite startling, to see something so sophisticated
in a 'general readership' publication.
Is it solvable without a calculus of variations approach?
--
Mark
Yes.
Spoiler below 13
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
Since the agent can run four times as fast as the rabbit can swim, no
matter what the agent does, the rabbit can swim away from the centre,
and keep the agent on the far side as long as the rabbit is no more than
1/4 of the radius from the centre. So the rabbit can reach a point 3/4
of a radius from the edge while the agent is still on the opposite side.
Only if the agent stands still until the last possible moment. I think
the agent will move continuously, and as soon as the rabbit starts
moving in any direction, the agent will move toward the point that is
the closest to the rabbit at that moment. Let's call the agent 'Xeno'.
No - until the rabbit is 1/4 of the radius away from the centre, he
can swim fast enough, in a suitable direction, to keep the agent
exactly opposite. So it doesn't matter if the agent moves.
Which shows, I think (to return to the very original question about
whether this needs horrible maths to solve) that there is a simple proof
that pretty-well anyone can follow that shows the rabbit can escape in
the specific case (it goes to where it can just swim faster than the
agent, swims round in a circle until it gets to 180 degrees away from
the agent, and can then make it to the shore faster than the agent can
run round), but that the optimum strategy, and hence the answer to the
unasked question about which size of ponds or relative speeds allow the
rabbit to escape do require the horrid maths.
--
Online waterways route planner:http://canalplan.org.uk
development version:http://canalplan.eu-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not convinced about the 'keep the agent on the opposite side'
logic. Lets expand the problem to their being TWO agents, already on
opposite sides. If the rabbit swims in any direction, off-center, then
both agents will move together to be at the point the rabbit is
apparently aiming for, then the rabbit moves slowly back towards
center and the problem is reduced to the original one. So the rabbit
can escape with TWO agents around the pool...or even an INFINITE
number of them? (well, slightly less than infinite, in this case....)

When the rabbit moved back towards the centre of the pool, the agents
would move back to positions oppoisite each other.

They may not have time.

It appears that the rabbit cannot escape if there are two agents.

Assume that the two agents are unaware of each other's existence and
choose the optimal strategy for a lone agent (always move so as
to decrease the angular difference). The rabbit must very slightly
modify his strategy, keep almost but not quite 180 degrees from the
agents
(otherwise they might split up). In this case the rabbit escapes.

However, assume that the two agents are aware of each other's
existence
but cannot communicate. They can stop the rabbit escaping. They
divide the
circle in two halves. Each agent adopts the strategy, move toward the
point
in my half that is closest to the rabbit.

- William Hughes

 

[Ben Bradley]

On Tue, 05 May 2009 01:14:47 +0100, Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On Tue, 05 May 2009 00:17:39 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

How about hiring some bots to perform a DoS attack on Google ?

DoS-ing Google is probably an impossibility. Even generating enough
extra traffic to make a visible blip on their traffic graph would be hard
enough.

Perhaps a big enough botnet (since you're already doing something
illegal) would get their attention.

But perhaps one could make a physical protest at Google
headquarters carrying signs that say "Google's Usenet Interface
SUCKS!"

Reminds me of Deja News, and when it went out of business ... many
months later, Google both Deja's archives, and finally put them online
(was it over a year the archives were inaccessible? It was a dark
period for Usenetians, regardless), and people were happy it was back,
though I'm not sure Google's interace ever worked as well as Deja's
did. Then newsgroup acces got (intentionally!) conflagrated with
Google's own discussion crap "Google Groups" and everything went all
to hell.

 

[flipper]

On Mon, 4 May 2009 14:32:56 -0700 (PDT), z <gzuckier@snail-mail.net>
wrote:

On May 4, 1:29 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

The antartic ice  is above long term trend:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

and the arctic ice is below long term trend
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

No, you mean it's below the cherry picked cyclical peak.

This is one reason why I wouldn't trust a 'climate change' advocate to
tell me if it were raining outside. They always cherry pick some
cyclical peak to compare against. If it's temperature they pick the
end of the little ice age and then, oh my, oh my, it's gotten warmer.
Hey, no kidding? I guess that's why it's no longer an ice age, eh?

Here they pick a 1978 peak but sssshhhh... don't talk about anything
prior. Like that the current ice shrinkage is NOTHING NEW and
completely within cyclical bounds.

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/pdf/50yr_web.pdf

"Objection: The Antarctic ice sheets are actually growing, which
wouldn't be happening if global warming were real.

Answer: There are two distinct problems with this argument.

First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to
disprove a global trend is dead in the water.

You mean like the arctic ice sheet?

No, of course not. It's only a problem with 'their' regional
phenomenon, not 'your' regional phenomenon.

Anthropogenic global
warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe.
We need to assess the balance of the evidence.

How about assessing the global temperature monitoring. No longer
convenient it shows no warming but a slight cooling trend, eh?

Gets worse too because, after error correction, 1998 wasn't "the
hottest year on record."

In the case of this particular region, there is actually very little
data about the changes in the ice sheets. The growth in the East
Antarctic ice sheet indicated by some evidence is so small, and the
evidence itself so uncertain, the sheet may well be shrinking.

But even this weak piece of evidence may no longer be current. Some
recent results from NASA's GRACE experiment, measuring the
gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, have indicated
that on the whole, ice mass is being lost.

Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming!

Classic zealotry. It may be shrinking, it may be growing, the data's
not clear, and I dispute the trend you claimed but just in case it
turns out to be true, well, we've come up with a way to explain how
that's global warming too. But if it's the other way we'll revert back
to the first explanation.

Warmer
climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the
most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to
receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees -- say,
from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C -- would still leave it below
freezing, so the snow wouldn't melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass.

While on the subject of ice sheets: Greenland is also growing ice in
the center, for the same reasons described above. But it is melting on
the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km3 of ice
annually, doubled from just a decade ago.

And what makes "a decade ago" the standard of comparison?

This is a huge amount
compared to changes in the Antarctic -- around three orders of
magnitude larger. So in terms of sea-level rise, any potential
mitigation due to East Antarctic Ice Sheet growth is wiped out many
times over by Greenland's melting."
http://www.grist.org/article/antarctic-ice-is-growing

All of which is meaningless because you're acting like a born at noon
June Bug screaming about global warming because of the "long term
tend' it's hotter at 2PM than when he was born.

Or, just to be clear, your "long term tend" is anything but.

On a related note: I have rejected the entire concept of "summer as a
warm season", as I notice that the ice sheet around the door seals of
my freezer gets larger only during this so-called "warm season". If
summer were truly a warm season, there would be LESS frost on the door
of my freezer then, obviously! Do not fall prey to the chicken-little
claims of these meteorologists that it gets warmer in summer; they are
controlled by the refrigerator cartel!

Your example might have some shred of relevance if you could point to
a huge internal powered 'refrigerator' at the poles instead of that
big yellow thing in the sky. But, as it is, that's a pathetic attempt
at ridicule.

It's well known that any
meteorologist who goes against the doctrine that it gets warmer in the
summer is blacklisted and can't get a decent job.

Here you're closer to the mark as evidenced by the public calls to
have some 'dissenters' de-credentialed.

This is not how
science is done; skeptics are not stilled by a phony "consensus";

And here you are exactly right. As witnessed by the existing
"consensus" when Einstein turned physics upside down. Or the existing
'earth is flat'. "consensus," or the center of the universe
"consensus."

Shall I go on? I can you know because the entire history of 'science'
consists of "consensus" after "consensus" superceded by 'skeptics'.

Btw, it's not just 'science'. "Consensus" is *never* a 'proof' of
fact. Facts and arguments stand on their own merits whether a million,
or just one, person 'believes' it.

more
research is needed to provide scientific proof that it gets warmer in
summer, before we destroy the economy by investing huge funds in
refrigeration and air conditioning!!

Fair enough. Pull out a thermometer. Now you've got proof.

If you're really interested in "science" then one of the requirements
for a conjecture to be theory is for it to make new, definitive,
measurable and testable predictions such that, should an experiment
testing that prediction fail, the theory can be disproved.

An example would be Einstein's prediction that gravity bends light and
the famous eclipse experiment confirming his calculations.

So, if there is a theory, then tell us what the new, definitive,
measurable and testable predictions are so we can devise an experiment
to test it.

 

[flipper]

On Mon, 4 May 2009 23:41:47 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <49FF72C5.5B08D62F@hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote:

Bob Eld wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

In the mean time the Arctic, Greenland and the Antarctic keep melting
and ice breaking up. Explain that. Me thinks you are "out to lunch."

No, the Arctic ice is recovering, can't say much about the others but
these things happen normally all the time. Temps go up and down without
human
intervention. AGW is treating the planet as if it should be in stasis.

Graham

Wrong! The arctic sea ice recovered slightly from the 2006 minimum but as of
April 2009, it was less in area than 1979-2000 average.

Picking numbers at random again. The current trend is that the Arctic ice is
thickening.

It is not thickening - it is at an extreme of thinness, notably with
much more than usual of its coverage being by thin first-year ice.

The area coverage compared to 1979-2000 average did indeed make a major
uptick in the past few months, almost up to the 1979-2000 average. And
last time it was lowest compared to 1979-2000 average for a specific time
of year may be as recently as late January 2009.

http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

SNIP

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Try the 1930's. Oh, wait, that's not on the graph. Gee, I wonder why?

 

[flipper]

On Tue, 05 May 2009 01:08:32 GMT, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Tue, 05 May 2009 01:05:08 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Mon, 4 May 2009 23:41:47 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <49FF72C5.5B08D62F@hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote:

Bob Eld wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

In the mean time the Arctic, Greenland and the Antarctic keep melting
and ice breaking up. Explain that. Me thinks you are "out to lunch."

No, the Arctic ice is recovering, can't say much about the others but
these things happen normally all the time. Temps go up and down without
human
intervention. AGW is treating the planet as if it should be in stasis.

Graham

Wrong! The arctic sea ice recovered slightly from the 2006 minimum but as of
April 2009, it was less in area than 1979-2000 average.

Picking numbers at random again. The current trend is that the Arctic ice is
thickening.

It is not thickening - it is at an extreme of thinness, notably with
much more than usual of its coverage being by thin first-year ice.

The area coverage compared to 1979-2000 average did indeed make a major
uptick in the past few months, almost up to the 1979-2000 average. And
last time it was lowest compared to 1979-2000 average for a specific time
of year may be as recently as late January 2009.

http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

SNIP

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Yes, though I wouldn't call it "up tick." It's just that the seasonal
loss of surface area is a bit slow, so far. They note: "Compared to
previous Aprils, April 2009 is near the middle of the distribution
(10th lowest of 31 years). The linear trend indicates that for the
month of April, ice extent is declining by 2.8% per decade, an average
of 42,400 square kilometers (16,400 square miles) of ice per year."

Fretting over one year to the next is INSANE.

Strawman. No scientist is doing that. They are just providing the
equation constants for a linear trend equation. It is developed by
looking at more than 30 years of data.

Yeah, 30 years out of a 50-70 year cycle.

That ain't 'long term' by any stretch of the imagination.

They might as well have said 848,000 km^2 per 20 years. I suppose
that if they had done that for you, you would shut up because you then
imagined that they were fretting over 20 year periods.

Are you that incompetent to realize what a constant factor means and
that it has nothing to do with "fretting over one year" here? Let's
walk through this slowly for you.

If a linear equation uses a variable expressed in terms of years,
the constant factor by which it is multiplied will be expressed in
"per year" terms so that the units work out, correctly. The fact
that it is expressed in "per year" terms in no way suggests that
only one year was examined in developing it or that anyone is
"fretting over one year."

Linear trend analysis is one of the most useless prediction mechanisms
ever devised and doubly so when applied to what is *known* to be
cyclical.

Btw, according to the 2006 Stock market 'long term linear trend' we're
at 15,000 right now. How's your stock doing?

There you go, Graham.

Cripes. And I used to wonder why Graham used sites suggesting that
relativity and cosmological theories are religious and manufactured by
atheists to prove there is no god. No longer.

Jon

 

[flipper]

On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:43:40 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:

On Sun, 03 May 2009 04:11:22 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Some REAL science at last, notably illustrating that the effect of CO2
in the atmosphere is nearly already at saturation level and more can
contribute very little to temperature rise.

Anthropogenic Global Warming was debunked in the 1970's. That's why they
changed the name to "Climate Change".

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Earth Day 1970

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If
present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder
for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in
the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into
an ice age."

Kenneth Watt, Ecologist


The Cooling World, Newsweek, 1975

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm


Another Ice Age?, Time Magazine 1974

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html


t is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase six-to
eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of
particulate matter particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise
the present global background opacity by a factor of 4, our
calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as
3.5[degrees]K [3.5[degrees]C]. Such a large decrease in the average
surface temperature of the Earth, sustained over a period of a few
years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

--Science, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide : Effects of Large Increases on
Global Climate," July 9, 1971


Climatologists now blame those recurring droughts and floods on a
global cooling trend. It could bring massive tragedies for mankind.

--Fortune, "Ominous Changes in the World's Weather," February 1974



Don't laugh too hard. I give it maybe 10 years before we're back in
the 'global cooling' scare.

But if you want a *real* laugh, follow the Times further back in the
past because it hasn't reversed just twice.

In the 1930's Tmes cautioned "the earth is steadily growing warmer."

Oh no. (Btw, Greenland warming was 50% FASTER and just as 'hot' in the
1920-1930 warming period as the one that's creating all the hype this
time around).

But that was after the Times Feb. 24, 1895 article, "Geologists Think
the World May Be Frozen Up Again."

 

[riverman]

On May 5, 9:41 am, Tim Little <t...@little-possums.net> wrote:
 Though actually it is not even

their best individual strategy, as the rabbit could then dictate which
direction they run with arbitrarily little cost by "feinting" motion
toward any arbitrary point on shore.

- Tim

The 'feinting' move would only work while the rabbit is extremely
close to the center. The strategy for any agent is to determine the
point that the rabbit is aiming for, and make haste toward that point.
While the rabbit is very close to the center, 'feinting' merely moves
it around a circle with a small radius, and changes the targetted
landing zone immensely with each 'feint'. But its a moot point: the
rabbit cannot make a break for the shore from the center...it needs to
be somewhere along a circle of a larger radius, which is where feints
become less productive.

The agent, meanwhile, would always race along the perimeter arc that
is shortest from where he is to where the rabbit is headed (if the
rabbitwere going directly along a radius). If the rabbit gains enough
on the agent that the arclength 'behind' him is suddenly shorter than
the one he is travelling along, he should turn around.

I think the rabbit could make use of this to follow a sinusoidal
pattern to the shore, always jogging back across the 'opposite radius'
to the position of the agent, causing the agent to reverse course.

In fact, if the rabbit were able to run in ANY circle until it were
precisely opposite the agent, the agent would be faced with two
equally desirous paths, and might even freeze in place instead. It
would if it were a robot programmed to follow the shortest arc to the
rabbit's landing zone...

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2009-05-04, James Rollins <james.rollines@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 4, 8:47 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
On May 3, 4:09 pm, James Rollins <james.rolli...@gmail.com> wrote:

In my never ending quest for a cheap and simple high voltage
regulation I have come up with a simple dual capacitor mode. This is
similar to a Buck circuit without the inductor.

http://i41.tinypic.com/68zl03.jpg

That circuit is about as efficient as a linear regulator.

No so.

the only diference is the power to control the circuit

The
capacitor resistors are only there to reduce the charging rate on the
capacitor so that the fet switching times are within spec.

their purpose does not change their performance.

If you have 1000v on one end and 10v on the other end for evert milliwatt
you pull out of the 10V end you're burning 990v in the resistor.

Ideally no
capacitor resistance would be needed and the capacitors would charge
up to the programmed voltage instantaneously and the switches would
cut the capacitor off at the programmed voltage.

the magnetic fields created by the infinite currents would destroy your
device, and it still wouldn't be any more efficient. instead of
heating up it would be producing radio waves.

if you put 1mA in at 1000V and only get 1mA out at 10V you still
have only 1% efficiency.

In case your interested:

The charging phase of one capacitor is

Vc(t) = (V - Vc0)*(1 - e^(-t/Rc/C)) + Vc0
t_charge = -Rc*C*ln((V-Vc)/(V - Vc0))

The discharging phase is

Vc(t) = Vc0*e^(-t/R/C)
t_discharge = - R*C*ln(Vc/Vc0)

t_charge and t_discharge basically determine the duty cycle and
frequency but also regulate the rise/fall times of the fet. One can
reduce Rc but this reduces the efficiency of the fets and potentially
decreases the regulation. Alternatively it could be balanced out by
using a higher capacitance. t_charge must obviously be smaller than
t_discharge. For ideal switches t_charge can simply be chosen to be 0
and hence it should be clear that it would be much more better than a
linear regulator.

it's clearly no more efficient, see above.

if you want improved efficiency use a buck regulator
if you want reduced ripple use a larger filter capacitor. or a higher
frequency,

 

[Tim Little]

On 2009-05-05, riverman <myronbuck@yahoo.com> wrote:

The 'feinting' move would only work while the rabbit is extremely
close to the center.

It works everywhere, as you later post:

I think the rabbit could make use of this to follow a sinusoidal
pattern to the shore, always jogging back across the 'opposite radius'
to the position of the agent, causing the agent to reverse course.

Yes, this is exactly why the "aim point" strategy fails. The rabbit
can make the agent run back and forth like a cat chasing the dot from
a laser pointer.


Though the reasoning is more general than that: at any time, the
situation is completely determined by the distance between rabbit and
shore, and the center angle between rabbit and agent. For a given
angle, closer to shore is always better for the rabbit. For a given
distance, a smaller angle is always better for the agent. If the
agent ever voluntarily increases the angle, the rabbit's position is
needlessly improved.


- Tim

 

[SuspendedInGaffa]

On Sun, 03 May 2009 15:09:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quantum Dyslexia?

 

[SuspendedInGaffa]

On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:39:39 GMT, Rich the Philosophizer
<philosobphizer@example.net> wrote:

On Sun, 03 May 2009 15:09:31 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Spaghetti.jpg/180px-Spaghetti.jpg

All of these theories are simply ways of rationalizing away the Magnetic
Will, the Cosmic, sentient magnetic essence that holds holds open the
space for the Universe to evolve in.

Also known as The Mother of Everything.

Cheers!
Rich
For more information, please feel free to visit http://www.godchannel.com

Firesign Theater is far more timeless and far better "entertainment".

I suggest listening to some... bring back some *REAL* *GOOD* memories.

The trilogy id the best...

"Waiting for the Electrician or Someone Like Him"

"Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers"

"I Think We're All Bozos On This Bus"

 

[Eeyore]

Don Klipstein wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Bob Eld wrote:

Wrong! The arctic sea ice recovered slightly from the 2006 minimum
but as of April 2009, it was less in area than 1979-2000 average.

Picking numbers at random again. The current trend is that the Arctic
ice is thickening.

It is not thickening - it is at an extreme of thinness, notably with
much more than usual of its coverage being by thin first-year ice.

Right, the ice is recovering. Maybe I should have been clearer ?

Every trend is going the opposite way to the AGW hypothesis.

The arctic sea ice coverage has gone from maybe roughly matching a
post-1979 record low for time of year to almost up to 1979-2000 average in
about 13 weeks.

Latest report from nsidc.org shows this 13-week-long recovery taking a
reversal, from a bit short of the 1979-2000 average.

I don't see 13 weeks showing a trend as well as 5-plus years does.

Give it longer. Whatever the greens say, it hasn't vanished. Why the fuss over
natural variation anyway ?

Graham

 

[Ian Bell]

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

Not only does he produce nonsense, he repeats it when he should know
better.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

He's in good company with you then Bill

Cheers

Ian

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2009-05-04, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 04 May 2009 10:25:42 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote:

if it's loaded with TiO it'll last several decades exposed.

Wouldn't that be TiO2?

Yeah that's what I meant,

 

[Eeyore]

Don Klipstein wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2009 23:41:47 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

It is not thickening - it is at an extreme of thinness, notably with
much more than usual of its coverage being by thin first-year ice.

The area coverage compared to 1979-2000 average did indeed make a major
uptick in the past few months, almost up to the 1979-2000 average. And
last time it was lowest compared to 1979-2000 average for a specific time
of year may be as recently as late January 2009.

http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Yes, though I wouldn't call it "up tick." It's just that the seasonal
loss of surface area is a bit slow, so far. They note: "Compared to
previous Aprils, April 2009 is near the middle of the distribution
(10th lowest of 31 years). The linear trend indicates that for the
month of April, ice extent is declining by 2.8% per decade, an average
of 42,400 square kilometers (16,400 square miles) of ice per year."

Fretting over one year to the next is INSANE.

Then what would you call a 13 week uptick from maybe matching lowest on
record for date of year (with the record roughly-matched or
possibly-broken-by-a-small-margin established probably in 2006 or 2007) to
a bit short of the 1979-2000 average?

Can you translate that into plain English for me ?

Graham

 

[Sum Ting Wong]

On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:07:02 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

On Mon, 04 May 2009 03:57:51 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
jcdrisc@melbpc.org.au wrote:

As a regular reader of the electronics postings I am heartily sick of
all the advertising for clothing, shoes and vanity items. I recall in
the old
days these would be deleted by a moderator.

Only in a moderated group

I can only assume Google's advertising
policies are a bit out of control. We have a situation where the
majority of the group is polluted by this garbage.
I would hope something is done.

Google could easily do one very simple thing that would partly help.
Delete posts linking to blogspot.com but somone inferred a while back
that they own it, so maybe that wouldn't work.

However email filters work rather well and I doubt Google couldn't afford
something similar for Usemet posts.

A concerted bombardment of google with complaints to the top level is
IMHO the only likely answer. Anyone know the addresses of the board
members, senior management etc ?

It would fall on deaf ears. How do you think google got so stinking rich?

Cheers!
Rich

By acting just like AOL did? Remember? Money... one direction only...
yeah... that's it... yeah... ahhhhh.