Driver to drive?

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:29:21 +0000, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:39:23 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:50:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:25:47 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:28:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
1% regulation looks OK to me unless you can show me the design specs.

I gave you a great pair of references which just happen to address
this directly for you and you haven't even bothered to read them.
That's clear. One in 1969 and another 40 years later in 2009 which
supplements the topics, as well as going further. Nice bookends and
you never could have written the above if you so much as had glancing
familiarity with mathematics or had read even one of those two papers.

Just one time I'd like to see a single _informed_ statement from some
naysayer here instead of just pulling numbers out of butts and making
up, entirely out of whole cloth, what the randomly conjured number
then supposedly means in a situation they know nothing about.

Reminds me of a hillbilly joke, but it's too crass to post here.

Jon

Having now had a chance to read these articles I note they are nothing
to do with anthropogenic global warming.

It was about the "1% regulation looks OK" ignorant comment. Now, it
was conditioned by the "design specs" escape clause. But the only way
to get past ignorant comments like this is to ... work hard at gaining
a comprehensive view. The papers I mentioned _do_ help address
getting an education and they do deal with the idea of "regulation" in
a relatively large region of our planetary sphere.

The Earth's temperature has varied over a 1% range over the last
10,000 years, since the end of the last glacial period. Data from
here:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

This assumes The Greenland ice cores are representative of global
temperatures.

My comment was informed not ignorant as you suggested. In fact the
global temperature now is about the average for the holocene period.
That allows for a 1.5C rise in Greenland since the last ice core
sample of 1905.

If you look at the data the there was a temperature rise of about 1C
per century 1200 years ago so even the recent rate of rise in
temperature is not unique for the Christian era let alone the
holocene.


Since you say you have read those two, you must realize by now that
there are a number of other papers referenced that are also needed in
order to apprehend them well enough to discuss informed opinions about
them. First off, would you be willing to discuss the details of just
these two? I'd like to cover some of the mathematics involved and
some detailed thoughts about the implications within them. I also
think it will be impossible to agree, without digging into many of the
other resources (as well as contacting some of the scientists who are
specialists in varying areas discussed in them), on at least some of
the aspects of these two. So we'd need to work hard and I don't
expect this to handed to either of us on a silver platter or as a
pill. But that's what it takes -- work. Are you willing to do that
with me?


I am afraid unlike you I don't have the time for detailed navel gazing
over minor aspects of climate science. Reading this stuff is something
I do for light relief after spending 6 days a week running a business
and working as it's main engineer.

However as far as I am concerned the onus is on the alarmist community
to actually demonstrate that CO2 is the main cause of temperature
rise. Self consistent models don't do it. Various claims of positive
feedback don't do it. And retrospective changes to the temperature
record don't do it.

And it is far to say that the hockey stick is crap science as
climategate and "hide the decline" have shown. If tree rings aren't a
good proxy for temperature since 1960 as they don't agree with teh
instrument record then they are not a good proxy for temperature in
the pre instrument age.

If you are interested in the cyclic nature of arctic ice see:

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401

I'm interested in seeing a cure to profound ignorance speaking here.
That means we each need to _work_ for our opinions. It's the _work_ I
am interested in seeing happen.

Join me?

Jon

It is not profound ignorance as you like to think but a considered
rejection of the claim that "the science is settled". In the end the
basics of climate science are not difficult to understand for an
engineer. It is an affectation of alarmists that it is difficult.

If the "science" hadn't been captured by the socialists/greens as a
means for increasing taxes, social control and social engineering then
most of us wouldn't even be debating it.

Thank you. I wish i could present my position so well. It is politics,
not science.

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:33:20 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:21:10 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:48:26 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:39:23 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:50:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:25:47 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:28:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
1% regulation looks OK to me unless you can show me the design specs.

I gave you a great pair of references which just happen to address
this directly for you and you haven't even bothered to read them.
That's clear. One in 1969 and another 40 years later in 2009 which
supplements the topics, as well as going further. Nice bookends and
you never could have written the above if you so much as had glancing
familiarity with mathematics or had read even one of those two papers.

Just one time I'd like to see a single _informed_ statement from some
naysayer here instead of just pulling numbers out of butts and making
up, entirely out of whole cloth, what the randomly conjured number
then supposedly means in a situation they know nothing about.

Reminds me of a hillbilly joke, but it's too crass to post here.

Jon

Having now had a chance to read these articles I note they are nothing
to do with anthropogenic global warming.

It was about the "1% regulation looks OK" ignorant comment. Now, it
was conditioned by the "design specs" escape clause. But the only way
to get past ignorant comments like this is to ... work hard at gaining
a comprehensive view. The papers I mentioned _do_ help address
getting an education and they do deal with the idea of "regulation" in
a relatively large region of our planetary sphere.

Since you say you have read those two, you must realize by now that
there are a number of other papers referenced that are also needed in
order to apprehend them well enough to discuss informed opinions about
them. First off, would you be willing to discuss the details of just
these two? I'd like to cover some of the mathematics involved and
some detailed thoughts about the implications within them. I also
think it will be impossible to agree, without digging into many of the
other resources (as well as contacting some of the scientists who are
specialists in varying areas discussed in them), on at least some of
the aspects of these two. So we'd need to work hard and I don't
expect this to handed to either of us on a silver platter or as a
pill. But that's what it takes -- work. Are you willing to do that
with me?

If you are interested in the cyclic nature of arctic ice see:

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401

I'm interested in seeing a cure to profound ignorance speaking here.
That means we each need to _work_ for our opinions. It's the _work_ I
am interested in seeing happen.

Join me?

Jon

Why don't you join us and post something interesting about electronic
design?

Why don't you join us and post something interesting about electronic
design, John?

Note that this rejoinder shows that "interesting" is in the eye of the
beholder. I'm a hobbyist and I want to see _education_, especially
aka the way Winfield Hill would encourage cooperative and creative
approaches on occasion here. You may have other interests. Others,
still others.

Your quip also means nothing about when you are going to _demonstrate_
your interest in seeing climate discussions end here; that it wasn't
just feigned clap-trap. For one, I'd be very glad to see ignorant
climate comments from people who _should_ know better cease here.

So *you* are presuming to educate *us*?

Hilarious.

I said I'd like _you_ to be good to your own word. I'm a hobbyist. I
would actually like to see less of what you claim you also don't want
to see and more of what I could enjoy learning about. I'd like to see
more of what you _know_ about and a lot less of what you are so
profoundly ignorant of. One has value. The other does not.

If you imagine it is hilarious to agree with you about where this
group should focus, then have at it.

Care to lead us to _your_ claimed promised land? Or will this group
remain a vent for fascist political/climate discussion?

"Fascist" is in the eye of the beholder.

Circuits, on the other hand, either work or don't. Perhaps that's too
rigid a standard for some people.

Lead, John. Lead. You write continually here on climate. You can't
control anyone else, but you do control yourself. Or one might want
to think so, anyway.

Jon

 

[Robert Baer]

* IMPOSSIBLE; they hang up immediately online pick-up.


nuny@bid.nes wrote:

On Dec 25, 9:15 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
Well i tried one of those recordings onhttp://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.htmland the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..

You're doing it wrong. You're assuming Government will help you and
getting pissed off when you should be having fun with them.

Answer the call, listen to the pitch, answer all the questions as if
you want to buy what they're selling right up until you get to where
they want your credit card number or mailing address then say "just a
minute, I have to go to the bathroom; I'll be right back", then lay
the phone down and listen for the BEEP BEEP BEEP letting you know
they've disconnected, then hang up.

When they call back, apologize for the unreliable phone connection
and repeat the above procedure, with variations like interrupting the
caller to discuss your grandson's first tooth, your hernia operation/
kidney stone/colostomy bag, how the Liberals/Conservatives/Communists/
Christians/Muslims/Atheists are ruining the country, or whatever
amuses you. Eventually they'll decide they're not going to be able to
sell you anything and cross your number off their list.

It may take a while, and the bastards may resell your number to
somebody else, but keep at it. AFAIK it's the only sure way to get rid
of them without going completely off-grid.


Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Robert Baer]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"nuny@bid.nes" wrote:
On Dec 25, 9:15 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
Well i tried one of those recordings onhttp://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.htmland the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..
You're doing it wrong. You're assuming Government will help you and
getting pissed off when you should be having fun with them.

Answer the call, listen to the pitch, answer all the questions as if
you want to buy what they're selling right up until you get to where
they want your credit card number or mailing address then say "just a
minute, I have to go to the bathroom; I'll be right back", then lay
the phone down and listen for the BEEP BEEP BEEP letting you know
they've disconnected, then hang up.

When they call back, apologize for the unreliable phone connection
and repeat the above procedure, with variations like interrupting the
caller to discuss your grandson's first tooth, your hernia operation/
kidney stone/colostomy bag, how the Liberals/Conservatives/Communists/
Christians/Muslims/Atheists are ruining the country, or whatever
amuses you. Eventually they'll decide they're not going to be able to
sell you anything and cross your number off their list.

It may take a while, and the bastards may resell your number to
somebody else, but keep at it. AFAIK it's the only sure way to get rid
of them without going completely off-grid.


Or ask them how hard it is to set up a phone scam like theirs, since
you're out of work.


* IMPOSSIBLE; they hang up immediately on line pick-up.

 

[Robert Baer]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:15:06 -0800) it happened Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in
1KOdndg809PrBqjWnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@posted.localnet>:

Well i tried one of those recordings on
http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html and the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..

Just pick up the phoe with: 'Department of Homeland Security'.
* IMPOSSIBLE; they hang up immediately on line pick-up.

 

[Robert Baer]

PeterD wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:15:06 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Well i tried one of those recordings on
http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html and the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..

Get caller id
Look at caller id
Recognize name, answer.
Don't recognize name: pickup/hangup.
Repeat as necessary.
Get on the federal Do Not Call list.
* I have been on the so-called "Do Not Call" list for years, and use it

to file complaints where i have a number or name (or on rare occasion,
both).
DOES NOT WORK; useless.

Best thing is to get a live person on the phone. Then string them
along as much as possible. If you get a man, tell him you'd rather
speak to a woman. If he puts a female on, string her along, then start
getting 'sexy' with her. Tell her you're glad she called, you are
horny. If the man says "No woman available" waste as much time of his
as you can, then tell him you are 12 years old, and lonly. Then thank
him for asking to have sex with you, but you'll have to ask your
parents.

The trick is to waste as much time of theirs as you can. Try to keep
them online for at least 15 minutes with a live person. Don't waste
time with recordings/electronic systems, get a live person on the
line. Then waste, waste time, and always end up with "I'm 12 years
old, thanks for asking me to have sex with you..."

* They immediately hang up; communications are impossible.

 

[Robert Baer]

Baron wrote:

Robert Baer Inscribed thus:

Well i tried one of those recordings on
http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html and the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2
weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..

I ended up with having to give up my number and was issued with a new
one that it permanently withheld and registered with TPS.

Even that didn't stop all the unwanted calls. Apparently they use an
incrementing count dialer to find the hidden numbers. So if you answer
the phone they log the fact and record it.

Been there, done that; does NO good.

 

[Robert Baer]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:15:06 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Well i tried one of those recordings on
http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html and the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..

After the holidays I plan to buy...

http://jfteck.com/

And make some additional modifications.

...Jim Thompson
...well, they lie in saying no extra monthly charges,as caller ID service

is an extra monthly charge.

 

[Robert Baer]

Howard Eisenhauer wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:25:50 -0800 (PST), "nuny@bid.nes"
alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 25, 9:15 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
Well i tried one of those recordings onhttp://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.htmland the marketeers that
*Snip*
You're doing it wrong. You're assuming Government will help you and
getting pissed off when you should be having fun with them.

*Snip*
Mark L. Fergerson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1waHJhb2wxo

H. :

Youtube is useless for me; i am on dial-up.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:55:35 -0800, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:33:20 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:21:10 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:48:26 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:39:23 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:50:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:25:47 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:28:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
1% regulation looks OK to me unless you can show me the design specs.

I gave you a great pair of references which just happen to address
this directly for you and you haven't even bothered to read them.
That's clear. One in 1969 and another 40 years later in 2009 which
supplements the topics, as well as going further. Nice bookends and
you never could have written the above if you so much as had glancing
familiarity with mathematics or had read even one of those two papers.

Just one time I'd like to see a single _informed_ statement from some
naysayer here instead of just pulling numbers out of butts and making
up, entirely out of whole cloth, what the randomly conjured number
then supposedly means in a situation they know nothing about.

Reminds me of a hillbilly joke, but it's too crass to post here.

Jon

Having now had a chance to read these articles I note they are nothing
to do with anthropogenic global warming.

It was about the "1% regulation looks OK" ignorant comment. Now, it
was conditioned by the "design specs" escape clause. But the only way
to get past ignorant comments like this is to ... work hard at gaining
a comprehensive view. The papers I mentioned _do_ help address
getting an education and they do deal with the idea of "regulation" in
a relatively large region of our planetary sphere.

Since you say you have read those two, you must realize by now that
there are a number of other papers referenced that are also needed in
order to apprehend them well enough to discuss informed opinions about
them. First off, would you be willing to discuss the details of just
these two? I'd like to cover some of the mathematics involved and
some detailed thoughts about the implications within them. I also
think it will be impossible to agree, without digging into many of the
other resources (as well as contacting some of the scientists who are
specialists in varying areas discussed in them), on at least some of
the aspects of these two. So we'd need to work hard and I don't
expect this to handed to either of us on a silver platter or as a
pill. But that's what it takes -- work. Are you willing to do that
with me?

If you are interested in the cyclic nature of arctic ice see:

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401

I'm interested in seeing a cure to profound ignorance speaking here.
That means we each need to _work_ for our opinions. It's the _work_ I
am interested in seeing happen.

Join me?

Jon

Why don't you join us and post something interesting about electronic
design?

Why don't you join us and post something interesting about electronic
design, John?

Note that this rejoinder shows that "interesting" is in the eye of the
beholder. I'm a hobbyist and I want to see _education_, especially
aka the way Winfield Hill would encourage cooperative and creative
approaches on occasion here. You may have other interests. Others,
still others.

Your quip also means nothing about when you are going to _demonstrate_
your interest in seeing climate discussions end here; that it wasn't
just feigned clap-trap. For one, I'd be very glad to see ignorant
climate comments from people who _should_ know better cease here.

So *you* are presuming to educate *us*?

Hilarious.

I said I'd like _you_ to be good to your own word. I'm a hobbyist. I
would actually like to see less of what you claim you also don't want
to see and more of what I could enjoy learning about. I'd like to see
more of what you _know_ about and a lot less of what you are so
profoundly ignorant of. One has value. The other does not.

If you imagine it is hilarious to agree with you about where this
group should focus, then have at it.

Care to lead us to _your_ claimed promised land? Or will this group
remain a vent for fascist political/climate discussion?

"Fascist" is in the eye of the beholder.

Circuits, on the other hand, either work or don't. Perhaps that's too
rigid a standard for some people.

Lead, John. Lead. You write continually here on climate.

I do not. You and Sloman are the climate floggers here. I occasionally
poke fun at people who are obscessed about climate and apparently know
little about electronics. They need to rant about something they can't
be called on, and use climate as an excuse to insult other people and
proclaim their superiority. If they said anything serious about
electronics they'd be subject to reality.


You can't

control anyone else, but you do control yourself. Or one might want
to think so, anyway.

Of course I control other people. I don't want to, but sometimes I
have to.

John

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 27, 3:52 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:29:21 +0000, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:39:23 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:50:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:25:47 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:28:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
1% regulation looks OK to me unless you can show me the design specs..

I gave you a great pair of references which just happen to address
this directly for you and you haven't even bothered to read them.
That's clear.  One in 1969 and another 40 years later in 2009 which
supplements the topics, as well as going further.  Nice bookends and
you never could have written the above if you so much as had glancing
familiarity with mathematics or had read even one of those two papers..

Just one time I'd like to see a single _informed_ statement from some
naysayer here instead of just pulling numbers out of butts and making
up, entirely out of whole cloth, what the randomly conjured number
then supposedly means in a situation they know nothing about.

Reminds me of a hillbilly joke, but it's too crass to post here.

Jon

Having now had a chance to read these articles I note they are nothing
to do with anthropogenic global warming.

It was about the "1% regulation looks OK" ignorant comment.  Now, it
was conditioned by the "design specs" escape clause.  But the only way
to get past ignorant comments like this is to ... work hard at gaining
a comprehensive view.  The papers I mentioned _do_ help address
getting an education and they do deal with the idea of "regulation" in
a relatively large region of our planetary sphere.

The Earth's temperature has varied over a 1% range over the last
10,000 years, since the end of the last glacial period. Data from
here:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2...

This assumes The Greenland ice cores are representative of global
temperatures.

My comment was informed not ignorant as you suggested. In fact the
global temperature now is about the average for the holocene period.
That allows for a 1.5C rise in Greenland since the last ice core
sample of 1905.

If you look at the data the there was a temperature rise of about 1C
per century 1200 years ago so even the recent rate of rise in
temperature is not unique for the Christian era let alone the
holocene.

Since you say you have read those two, you must realize by now that
there are a number of other papers referenced that are also needed in
order to apprehend them well enough to discuss informed opinions about
them.  First off, would you be willing to discuss the details of just
these two?  I'd like to cover some of the mathematics involved and
some detailed thoughts about the implications within them.  I also
think it will be impossible to agree, without digging into many of the
other resources (as well as contacting some of the scientists who are
specialists in varying areas discussed in them), on at least some of
the aspects of these two.  So we'd need to work hard and I don't
expect this to handed to either of us on a silver platter or as a
pill.  But that's what it takes -- work.  Are you willing to do that
with me?

I am afraid unlike you I don't have the time for detailed navel gazing
over minor aspects of climate science. Reading this stuff is something
I do for light relief after spending 6 days a week running a business
and working as it's main engineer.

However as far as I am concerned the onus is on the alarmist community
to actually demonstrate that CO2 is the main cause of temperature
rise. Self consistent models don't do it. Various claims of positive
feedback don't do it. And retrospective changes to the temperature
record don't do it.

And it is far to say that the hockey stick is crap science as
climategate and "hide the decline" have shown. If tree rings aren't a
good proxy for temperature since 1960 as they don't agree with teh
instrument record then they are not a good proxy for temperature in
the pre instrument age.

If you are interested in the cyclic nature of arctic ice see:

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401

I'm interested in seeing a cure to profound ignorance speaking here.
That means we each need to _work_ for our opinions.  It's the _work_ I
am interested in seeing happen.

Join me?

Jon

It is not profound ignorance as you like to think

As a number of us have been forced to think by your inept arguments
and incompetent way with evidence

but a considered rejection of the claim that "the science is settled".

"Considered"? Ravinghorde doesn't know enough for his opinions to rate
as "considered" - you can't "consider" what you don't understand. The
word imples observing a subject, and thinking about what you have
observed, and Ravinghorde doesn't observe the stuff he presents well
enough to appreciate what it actually means, which means that he isn't
in a positon to think about it in any useful way.

In the end the
basics of climate science are not difficult to understand for an
engineer.

But obviously too difficult for Ravinghorde, since he makes a habit of
getting its wrong.

It is an affectation of alarmists that it is difficult.

A claim that might carry more weight if Ravinghorde showed more signs
of understanding what he posts.

If the "science" hadn't been captured by the socialists/greens as a
means for increasing taxes, social control and social engineering then
most of us wouldn't even be debating it.

The same kind of social control that banned chlorofluorocarbons to
stop the ozone hole getting any bigger, and got sulphur-scrubbers
installed in the smoke stacks of power stations to put an end to acid
rain?

An anathema to more rabid right-wingers, no matter how sensible in
practice.

Grow up. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere is a problem that we are going
to have to deal with. The solution is going to be more expensive than
getting rid of chloroflurocarbons and SO2 emissions, but nowhere near
expensive enough to disrupt society or require more government control
than we have at the moment.

Thank you.  I wish i could present my position so well.  It is politics,
not science.

More wishful thinking. Ravinghorde's position is that he is allowing
his political opinions to dictate what "scientific" advice he will
listen to. He doesn't know enough about the science involved to
distinguish between nonsense that he sees as supporting his preferred
understanding and the coherent body of peer-reviewed work that
doesn't, and when he does get hold of respectable peer-reviewed work,
he's inclined to quote bits of it out of context for support, when the
work as a whole contradicts what he wants to claim.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:49:37 -0800, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:29:21 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
It is not profound ignorance as you like to think but a considered
rejection of the claim that "the science is settled". In the end the
basics of climate science are not difficult to understand for an
engineer. It is an affectation of alarmists that it is difficult.

If the "science" hadn't been captured by the socialists/greens as a
means for increasing taxes, social control and social engineering then
most of us wouldn't even be debating it.

Bottom line, I take it, is that you won't waste a split second
educating yourself on the topic, but would rather remain ignorant and
instead spout politics, religion, and ideology.

Well, that's about what's happened to the group. So you have your
wish.

Jon

I spend a lot of my spare time reading on climate. And I read the 2
papers you suggested.

Unfortunately you take the alarmist position that failure to believe
that CO2 is the major cause of temperature change is ignorance and
lack of willingness to understand. Rather it is a case of where is the
evidence?

It is strange of course that no one seems to have published a paper
demonstrating that CO2 is the major driver of temperature.
Deconstructing such a paper would be educational.

Unfortunately you come across as a self important arrogant prick
rather than a genuine inquiring mind.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:50:47 -0800) it happened Robert Baer
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in
<LqadnZvkH7yuRKvWnZ2dnUVZ_vFi4p2d@posted.localnet>:

Howard Eisenhauer wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:25:50 -0800 (PST), "nuny@bid.nes"
alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 25, 9:15 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
Well i tried one of those recordings onhttp://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.htmland the marketeers that
*Snip*
You're doing it wrong. You're assuming Government will help you and
getting pissed off when you should be having fun with them.

*Snip*
Mark L. Fergerson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1waHJhb2wxo

LOL

 

[PeterD]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:38:11 -0800, Robert Baer
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:15:06 -0800) it happened Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in
1KOdndg809PrBqjWnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@posted.localnet>:

Well i tried one of those recordings on
http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html and the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..

Just pick up the phoe with: 'Department of Homeland Security'.
* IMPOSSIBLE; they hang up immediately on line pick-up.

Most states this is a violation of law... COvered under the
'harrassing and threatening phone calls' statutes...

 

[PeterD]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:41:29 -0800, Robert Baer
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

PeterD wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:15:06 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Well i tried one of those recordings on
http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html and the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..

Get caller id
Look at caller id
Recognize name, answer.
Don't recognize name: pickup/hangup.
Repeat as necessary.
Get on the federal Do Not Call list.
* I have been on the so-called "Do Not Call" list for years, and use it
to file complaints where i have a number or name (or on rare occasion,
both).
DOES NOT WORK; useless.

WOrks well for most of us. You may have pissed someone off and that's
what is happening.

Best thing is to get a live person on the phone. Then string them
along as much as possible. If you get a man, tell him you'd rather
speak to a woman. If he puts a female on, string her along, then start
getting 'sexy' with her. Tell her you're glad she called, you are
horny. If the man says "No woman available" waste as much time of his
as you can, then tell him you are 12 years old, and lonly. Then thank
him for asking to have sex with you, but you'll have to ask your
parents.

The trick is to waste as much time of theirs as you can. Try to keep
them online for at least 15 minutes with a live person. Don't waste
time with recordings/electronic systems, get a live person on the
line. Then waste, waste time, and always end up with "I'm 12 years
old, thanks for asking me to have sex with you..."

* They immediately hang up; communications are impossible.

Well, in that case no black box will work. Period.

I'd strongly suggest you involve local law enforcement...

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 27, 4:59 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:55:35 -0800, Jon Kirwan





j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:33:20 -0800, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:21:10 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:48:26 -0800, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:39:23 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:50:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:25:47 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:28:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
1% regulation looks OK to me unless you can show me the design specs.

I gave you a great pair of references which just happen to address
this directly for you and you haven't even bothered to read them.
That's clear.  One in 1969 and another 40 years later in 2009 which
supplements the topics, as well as going further.  Nice bookends and
you never could have written the above if you so much as had glancing
familiarity with mathematics or had read even one of those two papers.

Just one time I'd like to see a single _informed_ statement from some
naysayer here instead of just pulling numbers out of butts and making
up, entirely out of whole cloth, what the randomly conjured number
then supposedly means in a situation they know nothing about.

Reminds me of a hillbilly joke, but it's too crass to post here.

Jon

Having now had a chance to read these articles I note they are nothing
to do with anthropogenic global warming.

It was about the "1% regulation looks OK" ignorant comment.  Now, it
was conditioned by the "design specs" escape clause.  But the only way
to get past ignorant comments like this is to ... work hard at gaining
a comprehensive view.  The papers I mentioned _do_ help address
getting an education and they do deal with the idea of "regulation" in
a relatively large region of our planetary sphere.

Since you say you have read those two, you must realize by now that
there are a number of other papers referenced that are also needed in
order to apprehend them well enough to discuss informed opinions about
them.  First off, would you be willing to discuss the details of just
these two?  I'd like to cover some of the mathematics involved and
some detailed thoughts about the implications within them.  I also
think it will be impossible to agree, without digging into many of the
other resources (as well as contacting some of the scientists who are
specialists in varying areas discussed in them), on at least some of
the aspects of these two.  So we'd need to work hard and I don't
expect this to handed to either of us on a silver platter or as a
pill.  But that's what it takes -- work.  Are you willing to do that
with me?

If you are interested in the cyclic nature of arctic ice see:

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401

I'm interested in seeing a cure to profound ignorance speaking here.
That means we each need to _work_ for our opinions.  It's the _work_ I
am interested in seeing happen.

Join me?

Jon

Why don't you join us and post something interesting about electronic
design?

Why don't you join us and post something interesting about electronic
design, John?

Note that this rejoinder shows that "interesting" is in the eye of the
beholder.  I'm a hobbyist and I want to see _education_, especially
aka the way Winfield Hill would encourage cooperative and creative
approaches on occasion here.  You may have other interests.  Others,
still others.

Your quip also means nothing about when you are going to _demonstrate_
your interest in seeing climate discussions end here; that it wasn't
just feigned clap-trap.  For one, I'd be very glad to see ignorant
climate comments from people who _should_ know better cease here.

So *you* are presuming to educate *us*?

Hilarious.

I said I'd like _you_ to be good to your own word.  I'm a hobbyist.  I
would actually like to see less of what you claim you also don't want
to see and more of what I could enjoy learning about.  I'd like to see
more of what you _know_ about and a lot less of what you are so
profoundly ignorant of.  One has value.  The other does not.

If you imagine it is hilarious to agree with you about where this
group should focus, then have at it.

Care to lead us to _your_ claimed promised land?  Or will this group
remain a vent for fascist political/climate discussion?

"Fascist" is in the eye of the beholder.

Circuits, on the other hand, either work or don't. Perhaps that's too
rigid a standard for some people.

Lead, John.  Lead.  You write continually here on climate.

I do not.

That's certainly not my impression. You do intersperse your climate
rants with better-informed electronics rants, so you can't be claimed
to write continuously on the climate, but scarcley a day goes past
without you ventilating one of your crass misapprehensions about
anthropogenic global warming.

You and Sloman are the climate floggers here.

We merely respond to the nonsense posted by you and your various
fellow Exxon-Mobil dupes.

I occasionally

continually

poke fun at people who are obscessed about climate and apparently know
little about electronics.

Since you reliably claim that anybody who disagrees with you knows
little about electronics, this isn't quite the non sequiture it
appears to be. It does say something about your rather shallow self-
preception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

They need to rant about something they can't
be called on,

In the same way that you rant about climate wihtout being able to back
up your absurd and blatantly second-nhand opinions, obviously culled
from some denialist web-site, probably by some incompetent science
reporter working for the "The Register".

and use climate as an excuse to insult other people and
proclaim their superiority.

This isn't entirely accurate. We do jeer at your misapprehensions from
a position of knowing more about the subject, which you do experience
as an insulting proclamation of superiority, but our motivation is
basic error detection and correction - nobody expects to score brownie
points for correcting the obvious errors of the ill-informed. You only
acquire prestige by correcting the subtle errors of people who should
know better.

If they said anything serious about
electronics they'd be subject to reality.

So my opinion on the uses of ferrite beads is in some sense inferior
to yours in today's thread "When are ferrite beads the most
appropriate component to use?". I managed to mention their low
parallel capacitance, and warned that they aren't always lossy enough.
You did explicitly emphasise their utility at keeping RF out of op
amps, which I took as read.

You can't
control anyone else, but you do control yourself.  Or one might want
to think so, anyway.

Of course I control other people. I don't want to, but sometimes I
have to.

But you can't control anybody else in this group and you can't control
your own tendency to pontificate about stuff you know very little
about, and should - by now - know that you know very little about.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:36:09 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 27, 12:27 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:49:37 -0800, Jon Kirwan





j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:29:21 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
It is not profound ignorance as you like to think but a considered
rejection of the claim that "the science is settled". In the end the
basics of climate science are not difficult to understand for an
engineer. It is an affectation of alarmists that it is difficult.

If the "science" hadn't been captured by the socialists/greens as a
means for increasing taxes, social control and social engineering then
most of us wouldn't even be debating it.

Bottom line, I take it, is that you won't waste a split second
educating yourself on the topic, but would rather remain ignorant and
instead spout politics, religion, and ideology.

Well, that's about what's happened to the group.  So you have your
wish.

Jon

I spend a lot of my spare time reading on climate. And I read the 2
papers you suggested.

Unfortunately you take the alarmist position that failure to believe
that CO2 is the major cause of temperature change is ignorance and
lack of willingness to understand. Rather it is a case of where is the
evidence?

Or rather where is the evidnece that you can understand?

It is strange of course that no one seems to have published a paper
demonstrating that CO2 is the major driver of temperature.
Deconstructing such a paper would be educational.

You may have to go back a bit to find such a paper. The idea has been
around for quite some time.

A theory is not evidence.

The idea of perpetual motion has been around for some time. But there
is no evidence for it. So has phlogiston theory.

Check out

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Fourier seems to have been the first to come up with the idea in the
1820's so you may have trouble getting hold of a copy of his paper to
deconstruct. I hope you can read the scientific French of the period -

Another daft comment. If it is only available in French it is hardly
part of the current "climate consensus".


SNIP

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 27, 12:27 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:49:37 -0800, Jon Kirwan





j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:29:21 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
It is not profound ignorance as you like to think but a considered
rejection of the claim that "the science is settled". In the end the
basics of climate science are not difficult to understand for an
engineer. It is an affectation of alarmists that it is difficult.

If the "science" hadn't been captured by the socialists/greens as a
means for increasing taxes, social control and social engineering then
most of us wouldn't even be debating it.

Bottom line, I take it, is that you won't waste a split second
educating yourself on the topic, but would rather remain ignorant and
instead spout politics, religion, and ideology.

Well, that's about what's happened to the group.  So you have your
wish.

Jon

I spend a lot of my spare time reading on climate. And I read the 2
papers you suggested.

Unfortunately you take the alarmist position that failure to believe
that CO2 is the major cause of temperature change is ignorance and
lack of willingness to understand. Rather it is a case of where is the
evidence?

Or rather where is the evidnece that you can understand?

It is strange of course that no one seems to have published a paper
demonstrating that CO2 is the major driver of temperature.
Deconstructing such a paper would be educational.

You may have to go back a bit to find such a paper. The idea has been
around for quite some time. Check out

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Fourier seems to have been the first to come up with the idea in the
1820's so you may have trouble getting hold of a copy of his paper to
deconstruct. I hope you can read the scientific French of the period -
as an undergraduate in chemistry I was expected to read the Nouveau
Traite de Chimie Minerale for the properties of inorganic chemicals,
and it wasn't always that easy to follow. The German Beilstein
Handbuch for organic chemicals was easier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beilstein_database

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Pascal

Unfortunately you come across as a self important arrogant prick
rather than a genuine inquiring mind.

Your widely shared misconceptions aren't all that interesting to
enquiring minds - except perhaps to those studying the psychology of
commercially procured mass delusion.

If you persist in coming forward with half-baked ideas you have to
expect progressively curter and more dismissive responses.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:54:07 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 27, 4:59 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:55:35 -0800, Jon Kirwan





j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:33:20 -0800, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:21:10 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:48:26 -0800, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:39:23 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:50:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:25:47 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:28:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
1% regulation looks OK to me unless you can show me the design specs.

I gave you a great pair of references which just happen to address
this directly for you and you haven't even bothered to read them.
That's clear.  One in 1969 and another 40 years later in 2009 which
supplements the topics, as well as going further.  Nice bookends and
you never could have written the above if you so much as had glancing
familiarity with mathematics or had read even one of those two papers.

Just one time I'd like to see a single _informed_ statement from some
naysayer here instead of just pulling numbers out of butts and making
up, entirely out of whole cloth, what the randomly conjured number
then supposedly means in a situation they know nothing about.

Reminds me of a hillbilly joke, but it's too crass to post here.

Jon

Having now had a chance to read these articles I note they are nothing
to do with anthropogenic global warming.

It was about the "1% regulation looks OK" ignorant comment.  Now, it
was conditioned by the "design specs" escape clause.  But the only way
to get past ignorant comments like this is to ... work hard at gaining
a comprehensive view.  The papers I mentioned _do_ help address
getting an education and they do deal with the idea of "regulation" in
a relatively large region of our planetary sphere.

Since you say you have read those two, you must realize by now that
there are a number of other papers referenced that are also needed in
order to apprehend them well enough to discuss informed opinions about
them.  First off, would you be willing to discuss the details of just
these two?  I'd like to cover some of the mathematics involved and
some detailed thoughts about the implications within them.  I also
think it will be impossible to agree, without digging into many of the
other resources (as well as contacting some of the scientists who are
specialists in varying areas discussed in them), on at least some of
the aspects of these two.  So we'd need to work hard and I don't
expect this to handed to either of us on a silver platter or as a
pill.  But that's what it takes -- work.  Are you willing to do that
with me?

If you are interested in the cyclic nature of arctic ice see:

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401

I'm interested in seeing a cure to profound ignorance speaking here.
That means we each need to _work_ for our opinions.  It's the _work_ I
am interested in seeing happen.

Join me?

Jon

Why don't you join us and post something interesting about electronic
design?

Why don't you join us and post something interesting about electronic
design, John?

Note that this rejoinder shows that "interesting" is in the eye of the
beholder.  I'm a hobbyist and I want to see _education_, especially
aka the way Winfield Hill would encourage cooperative and creative
approaches on occasion here.  You may have other interests.  Others,
still others.

Your quip also means nothing about when you are going to _demonstrate_
your interest in seeing climate discussions end here; that it wasn't
just feigned clap-trap.  For one, I'd be very glad to see ignorant
climate comments from people who _should_ know better cease here.

So *you* are presuming to educate *us*?

Hilarious.

I said I'd like _you_ to be good to your own word.  I'm a hobbyist.  I
would actually like to see less of what you claim you also don't want
to see and more of what I could enjoy learning about.  I'd like to see
more of what you _know_ about and a lot less of what you are so
profoundly ignorant of.  One has value.  The other does not.

If you imagine it is hilarious to agree with you about where this
group should focus, then have at it.

Care to lead us to _your_ claimed promised land?  Or will this group
remain a vent for fascist political/climate discussion?

"Fascist" is in the eye of the beholder.

Circuits, on the other hand, either work or don't. Perhaps that's too
rigid a standard for some people.

Lead, John.  Lead.  You write continually here on climate.

I do not.

That's certainly not my impression. You do intersperse your climate
rants with better-informed electronics rants, so you can't be claimed
to write continuously on the climate, but scarcley a day goes past
without you ventilating one of your crass misapprehensions about
anthropogenic global warming.

You and Sloman are the climate floggers here.

We merely respond to the nonsense posted by you and your various
fellow Exxon-Mobil dupes.

I occasionally

continually

poke fun at people who are obscessed about climate and apparently know
little about electronics.

Since you reliably claim that anybody who disagrees with you knows
little about electronics, this isn't quite the non sequiture it
appears to be. It does say something about your rather shallow self-
preception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

They need to rant about something they can't
be called on,

In the same way that you rant about climate wihtout being able to back
up your absurd and blatantly second-nhand opinions, obviously culled
from some denialist web-site, probably by some incompetent science
reporter working for the "The Register".

and use climate as an excuse to insult other people and
proclaim their superiority.

This isn't entirely accurate. We do jeer at your misapprehensions from
a position of knowing more about the subject, which you do experience
as an insulting proclamation of superiority, but our motivation is
basic error detection and correction - nobody expects to score brownie
points for correcting the obvious errors of the ill-informed. You only
acquire prestige by correcting the subtle errors of people who should
know better.

If they said anything serious about
electronics they'd be subject to reality.

So my opinion on the uses of ferrite beads is in some sense inferior
to yours in today's thread "When are ferrite beads the most
appropriate component to use?". I managed to mention their low
parallel capacitance, and warned that they aren't always lossy enough.
You did explicitly emphasise their utility at keeping RF out of op
amps, which I took as read.

Excellent. But you post, literally, around 1% electronics, 99% climate
bilge. And your bilge posts almost always contain fatheaded insults.
Hell of a way to live.

Why don't you do some interesting electronic experiments and post the
results. Everybody would be happier, especially you.

How's the weather where you are? It's snowing here, nice and steady,
fluffy flakes coming straight down. And the sun is shining.

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Snow_and_sun.jpg

What a beautiful planet we are priviliged to live on.

John

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:36:57 -0800, Robert Baer
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

* IMPOSSIBLE; they hang up immediately online pick-up.


[snip]

It is trivial to build a box such that...

Phone rings

Observe Caller-ID

If unknown to you or 800, press a button

Your phone stops ringing

Caller still hears ringing, finally gives up

I'm pondering how to automate this, and add features such as...

Allow roll to voice mail

Allow forwarding

Ring X times (just shy of VM activation) then kill the connection.

Nastygrams (but why bother?)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Help save the environment!
Please dispose of socialism responsibly!