OT: Bush Thugs Rough Up Grieving Mother of KIA

[Rolavine]

From: kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith)

Frithiof Andreas Jensen <frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote
Dawd Dam Microsoft. The install for ME is really screwed up.

The entire "ME" is screwed - quite possibly the worst windows ever, the
pinnacle of DOS-based windows, written by the leftover programmers that the
XP team did not want!!! So, what do you expect?

The installer PGFs. Does anyone have any guess as to why?

Because it's crap too, because you ran it, But .... most probably because
you are not installing it on a *clean" drive - clean, as in New or Totally
wiped by another file system - i never bothered to understand *why* this
seems to be an issue; maybe windows finds bits of corruption on the disk,
recognises it as "self" and incorporates it!


It is an "upgrade"[1] version so I can't clean the drive and then install
unless I am willing to let it destroy the Win98 floppies. The Win98
system has saved my but in this case. I got Win98 running so I could get
on the network and copy in the backup.

Are you sure it would destroy the floppies, I dont' think so, I think it just

looks at them to check that you own them. I have my previous Windows on CDRom
so it couldn't destroy that. If microsoft was going to destroy your floppies
I'm sure it would tell you first. And you could just make coppies of your
floppies anyway.

There are 2 hard disks, by swapping cables, I can boot the Win98 disk.

Now it boots and is back to its flaky old self. Tomorrow, I will put the
lid back on the PC.

Have you looked at your bios settings. I've sometimes had to tell bios that it
is not using a Plug and play aware operating system to get Me to run OK. In
this case the bios routines set the addresses and interrupts and not ME.

Good luck, I'm still running ME, with good results on 6 computers. The geat
thing is that no one is bothering to make new virus for it.
>

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Guy Macon wrote:

Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

Rich Grise wrote:

Kevin Aylward did deign to grace us with the following:

However, we can't ignore the truth because we don't like it.

Well, you're doing an admirable job of it so far! ;-)

And what truth would that be?

The truth that you *aren't* smarter than the vast array of experts
who reject your theories.

There are no experts that reject my thories. No expert has seen them.

Secondly, I am smarter than most experts. Sure, you don't like my
arrogance about it, but that don't change the facts. You are letting
your personal feelings get in the way of an objective analysis.

What you are doing is no different from my school days. I was a dark
skinned paki getting 1sts in maths, lets go and beat him up then, and
they did.

The truth that you substiture namecalling and personal attacks for
logic and reason.

You have been provided with much logic and reason. You obviously don't
understand this logic, so I am resorting to name calling as a last ditch
attempt to make you see how silly your are.

My logic in my papers is flawless. You need to get over this issue you
have in thinking no one can be more knowledgeable than you.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Guy Macon wrote:

Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

Many, many accredited experts conclude that there is no free will. Go
and look up "consciousness explained" and other such matters.

And many, many *more* accredited experts (by far the vast majority
of them) conclude that the question of whether there is no free
will is unanswered. *You* are ill informed on this.

Nonsnse, sure ther are many whio still sit on the fence, so what. Many
dont.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Clarence]

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:n0h4d.288085$Lj.75506@fed1read03...

I haven't looked at the webpage in question; evidently you analogize
memes and genes. Do you further analogize that genes:chromosomes as
memespinions? If you do, you'll see why you won't gain many converts
here. Opinions are _never_ influenced by objective facts. They have to
be changed internally, and that process _hurts_. Why do you think
Buddhists symbolize enlightenment with a lightning bolt? You have
provided what looks like a memetic lightning rod, and naturally people
want to reject it on the off chance (from their POV) that if they take
hold of it, even tentatively, just to see what it is, they'll get struck.

How's that?

Mark L. Fergerson

You didn't read it, so without knowing why, you criticize others for rejecting
a poorly written and confusing paper which disagrees with know and acceptable
science?

You miss the point entirely, thereby providing support for that which you say
you do not support. Your statements above are of course your own opinions and
are not supportable by any facts or studies. Change does not 'hurt,' it is a
daily part of life, as is encountering new information (facts) which will
easily influence an attitude or opinion. However these changes must be
rational and understandable, or otherwise fit into a coherent discipline in
order to be integrated into our consciousness. The Paper in questions fails
the test of being easily understood and contains many conflicts with accepted
science.

Do not ask me why. The reasons have all been discussed to death in this
thread, and I spent far too much time trying to analyze the paper for
structure, coherent flow of thought, and accuracy. I could not complete that
task due to the many disconnects. Including dead end assumptions which were
not simply discussion, but in all likelihood, not acceptable constructs.

I will not reply to questions, this entire thread is a waste of the resource.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:44:08 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Axiom:

1 All physical phenomana is explainable by mass-energy physics.

How, exactly, is that axiomatic?

Oh dear again.

Because I unilaterally declared that statement to be a axiom. End of
story.

All other derivations will refer to that one, or some others as well.

Don. You know nothing about how science and mathematics works. This is
trivially clear. What you are saying is beyond belief. Do you actually
have a degree?

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:00:07 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:11:24 +0100, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

Axiom:

1 All physical phenomana is explainable by mass-energy physics.

How, exactly, is that axiomatic?

An axiom is an axiom is an axiom. It is a statement that is ASSUMED
to be true.

No, it isn't a statement that is assumed to be true, it is a statement
that is so self-evidently true

Apparently not.

Apparently? What are you talking about?

that nobody would feel a need to
question it.

Er... dude, there is *nothing* self-evidently true. This just shows you
are clueless about the basics of science. I can't belive that I have
just read such nonsense.

Axioms MUST be self evident - they aren't axioms otherwise, and need

to be proved themselves.

Kevin's statement above falls an awfully long way short

You Silly Billy. Your letting you personal feelings get in the way, i.e.
this Kevin dude is a dumbshit.

Talking about yourself in the third person? So you retreat from

responsibility for your own actions - is this part of your "no free
will" nonsense?

Since, 90% of Americans believe in god, they certainly *don't* believe
in my axiom as "self-evidently true", not to mention the other billions
of Hindus, Muslims etc. Like, dah...god is outside physics. And no,
don't say it is, cos you will only embarrass yourself further.

Er... you just said it is - have you thus embarrassed yourself?

Your way out of your depth, Don. You haven't the slightest idea of what
physics is all about.

Kevin Aylward

I certainly have no idea what you are about. My physics, on the other
hand, is fine.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Roy McCammon <rbmccammon@mmm.com>
wrote (in <4151B0C1.2040007@mmm.com&gt about 'new RCR trick for
transimpedance amplifier', on Wed, 22 Sep 2004:

4. look up the formula for "self" capacitance of
a sphere in any text that covers electrostatics
(I'm pretty sure that Haliday and Resnick has it)

1.1 pF per centimetre of radius. I thought everyone knew that. (;-)

In Continental Europe, capacitances of actual components were often
expressed in 'cm'.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Clarence <No@No.Com> wrote (in
<52j4d.18325$QJ3.3765@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com&gt about 'Ping Kevin
Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on Wed, 22 Sep 2004:

The Paper in questions fails the test of being easily
understood and contains many conflicts with accepted science.

Are you referring to 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' by any
chance?

(No, I don't class KA with AE, but you statement needs a sharp prod, so
I gave it one.]
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Clarence wrote:

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:n0h4d.288085$Lj.75506@fed1read03...

I haven't looked at the webpage in question; evidently you
analogize memes and genes. Do you further analogize that
genes:chromosomes as memespinions? If you do, you'll see why you
won't gain many converts here. Opinions are _never_ influenced by
objective facts. They have to be changed internally, and that
process _hurts_. Why do you think Buddhists symbolize enlightenment
with a lightning bolt? You have provided what looks like a memetic
lightning rod, and naturally people want to reject it on the off
chance (from their POV) that if they take hold of it, even
tentatively, just to see what it is, they'll get struck.

How's that?

Mark L. Fergerson

You didn't read it, so without knowing why, you criticize others for
rejecting a poorly written and confusing paper

Not at all. We have a couple of individuals, whose technical
incompetence is very apparent, that made some vacuous claims.

which disagrees with
know and acceptable science?
^^^^

Not in the slightest. There is nothing in it, and I mean nothing that
contradicts accepted science. You have not the slightest idea about what
has been done. My whole set of papers have been *based* on accepted
science. Thats what we scientists do. Anything not agreeing with known
experimental results don't get a look in from day one.

You know diddly squat about science. Like what's your degree in? Lets
here it. We all want to know.

Your claim is simply pathetic. Like, what part of it do you actually
claim contradicts known science?

TELL US WHAT IT IS, or go away.

And you really need to do something about your grammer. Its truly
dreadfull. Like, you have the cheek to complain about mine.

You miss the point entirely, thereby providing support for that which
you say you do not support. Your statements above are of course your
own opinions and are not supportable by any facts or studies.

Nonsense. Look up sociology, psychology, memes etc.

You are simple way too ignorant of science in general. Your a Muppet.
Some of us have actually taken such courses at university. Hint: I went
to university.

Change
does not 'hurt,' it is a daily part of life, as is encountering new
information (facts) which will easily influence an attitude or
opinion. However these changes must be rational and understandable,

or otherwise fit into a coherent discipline in order to be integrated
into our consciousness.

And indeed they are.

The Paper in questions fails the test of
being easily understood

ROTFLMAO

Oh dear...and where on earth do you get this "easily understood" crap as
a prerequisite for good science? You are one sad puppy indeed.

For example, when Eddington was addressed with the words "I understand
there are only 3 people that understand this new General Relativity of
Einstein's". He replied, "oh...and who is the 3rd?"

For reference, I doubt if you could understand GR in a million years,
hint: http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html

and contains many conflicts with accepted
science.

Please do tell us what the claimed conflicts are then. One will do.

Do not ask me why. The reasons have all been discussed to death in
this thread, and I spent far too much time trying to analyze the
paper for structure, coherent flow of thought, and accuracy. I could
not complete that task due to the many disconnects.

You could not complete the task because you are simply not clever
enough.

Including dead
end assumptions which were not simply discussion, but in all
likelihood, not acceptable constructs.

Give some examples then, or shut up.

I will not reply to questions, this entire thread is a waste of the
resource.

He...He...He...says it all.

One daft twat, that knows, nothing and says nothing.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:51:38 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@us.ibm.com> wrote:

I've done this at lower frequency, using a MRF966 GaAs FET (of song and
story, its life tragically cut short in its prime, like the MRF9331).

Both Moto and TI flirted with GaAs for a while, and did some
interesting stuff. The one I really miss is the TI mesfet with 7 amp
Idss, TRF7000, hell of a laser driver. They sent me samples and
discontinued it on almost the same day.

John

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com>
wrote (in <4157bf98.43200703@news.plus.net&gt about '[OT]: Ping Kevin
Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on Wed, 22 Sep 2004:

So the fact that your supposed axiom is not actually axiomatic means
that the entire edifice you have built on it has just crumbled into
dust.

He declared it as an axiom. That makes it an axiom. Are you actually
simply trolling?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:00:07 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:11:24 +0100, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

Axiom:

1 All physical phenomana is explainable by mass-energy physics.

How, exactly, is that axiomatic?

An axiom is an axiom is an axiom. It is a statement that is ASSUMED
to be true.

No, it isn't a statement that is assumed to be true, it is a
statement that is so self-evidently true

Apparently not.

Apparently? What are you talking about?

that nobody would feel a need to
question it.

Er... dude, there is *nothing* self-evidently true. This just shows
you are clueless about the basics of science. I can't belive that I
have just read such nonsense.

Axioms MUST be self evident - they aren't axioms otherwise, and need
to be proved themselves.

This is completely pointless. You haven't even the *faintest* idea. You
are a rank amateur on this.

It has taken me this long to actually deduce that your opinions on this
are completely worthless. The reason for this, is that in general, you
post very well in actual structure, and I commend you on this. Its just
the content that is lacking.

I am not going to debate this point, as it is well known and accepted in
science and in mathematics just what axioms/postulates are. It just
isn't debatable in the slightest.

An axiom/postulate is something that is taken to be the basis for all
further work. They are *assumed* to be true in a relative sense. They
are not provable by *definition*.

Go and read any text book on mathematics if you want further
information. I dont have the time to do this sort of basic remedial
corrections.

Dictionary.com has

7 entries found for axiom.
axˇiˇom ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ks-m)
n.

A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: "It is an
economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid
for only with goods and services" (Albert Jay Nock).
An established rule, principle, or law.

A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof
as the basis for argument; a postulate.
******************

The last one is the meaning used universally in mathematics and physics.

Kevin's statement above falls an awfully long way short

You Silly Billy. Your letting you personal feelings get in the way,
i.e. this Kevin dude is a dumbshit.

Talking about yourself in the third person? So you retreat from
responsibility for your own actions

Not at all. I have explained many times that I live my live with the
pretence that I have free will. Another approach would be quite
pointless.

- is this part of your "no free
will" nonsense?

Have a read of http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm, and its links,
and learn what modern science says about the matter.

Since, 90% of Americans believe in god, they certainly *don't*
believe in my axiom as "self-evidently true", not to mention the
other billions of Hindus, Muslims etc. Like, dah...god is outside
physics. And no, don't say it is, cos you will only embarrass
yourself further.

Er... you just said it is - have you thus embarrassed yourself?

Your way out of your depth, Don. You haven't the slightest idea of
what physics is all about.

Kevin Aylward

I certainly have no idea what you are about. My physics, on the other
hand, is fine.

No chance of that. You don't even understand what an axiom is.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:45:00 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:00:07 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:11:24 +0100, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

Axiom:

1 All physical phenomana is explainable by mass-energy physics.

How, exactly, is that axiomatic?

An axiom is an axiom is an axiom. It is a statement that is ASSUMED
to be true.

No, it isn't a statement that is assumed to be true, it is a
statement that is so self-evidently true

Apparently not.

Apparently? What are you talking about?

that nobody would feel a need to
question it.

Er... dude, there is *nothing* self-evidently true. This just shows
you are clueless about the basics of science. I can't belive that I
have just read such nonsense.

Axioms MUST be self evident - they aren't axioms otherwise, and need
to be proved themselves.

This is completely pointless. You haven't even the *faintest* idea. You
are a rank amateur on this.

It has taken me this long to actually deduce that your opinions on this
are completely worthless. The reason for this, is that in general, you
post very well in actual structure, and I commend you on this. Its just
the content that is lacking.

I am not going to debate this point, as it is well known and accepted in
science and in mathematics just what axioms/postulates are. It just
isn't debatable in the slightest.

An axiom/postulate is something that is taken to be the basis for all
further work. They are *assumed* to be true in a relative sense. They
are not provable by *definition*.

Go and read any text book on mathematics if you want further
information. I dont have the time to do this sort of basic remedial
corrections.

Dictionary.com has

7 entries found for axiom.
axˇiˇom ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ks-m)
n.

A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: "It is an
economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid
for only with goods and services" (Albert Jay Nock).
An established rule, principle, or law.

A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof
as the basis for argument; a postulate.
******************

The last one is the meaning used universally in mathematics and physics.



Kevin's statement above falls an awfully long way short

You Silly Billy. Your letting you personal feelings get in the way,
i.e. this Kevin dude is a dumbshit.

Talking about yourself in the third person? So you retreat from
responsibility for your own actions

Not at all. I have explained many times that I live my live with the
pretence that I have free will. Another approach would be quite
pointless.


- is this part of your "no free
will" nonsense?

Have a read of http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm, and its links,
and learn what modern science says about the matter.


Since, 90% of Americans believe in god, they certainly *don't*
believe in my axiom as "self-evidently true", not to mention the
other billions of Hindus, Muslims etc. Like, dah...god is outside
physics. And no, don't say it is, cos you will only embarrass
yourself further.

Er... you just said it is - have you thus embarrassed yourself?

Your way out of your depth, Don. You haven't the slightest idea of
what physics is all about.

Kevin Aylward

I certainly have no idea what you are about. My physics, on the other
hand, is fine.

No chance of that. You don't even understand what an axiom is.

Interesting then that the dictionary definitions you so kindly
provided conform more or less exactly to my own, while they are a
million miles from your chosen "they are axioms because I say they
are".

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Don Pearce
donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote (in <4157bf98.43200703@news.plus.net&gt
about '[OT]: Ping Kevin Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on
Wed, 22 Sep 2004:

So the fact that your supposed axiom is not actually axiomatic means
that the entire edifice you have built on it has just crumbled into
dust.

He declared it as an axiom. That makes it an axiom. Are you actually
simply trolling?

I don't think so John. The issue here is that, and I don't know how to
express this without sounding arrogant, many here are truly out of their
depth. Its a case of http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html.
Don is simply not qualified in these areas, and doesn't know it.

Most here, simple have no idea of the scientific method or the basics of
science itself, yet strongly insist they do. Even those with no
qualification in science do this.

This is the reason why this thread is so outrageous. Many cant accept
that I am formally enough qualified in science such that I am not out to
lunch on the basic issues. Sure I am not an expert, but in Masters
Physics, I gained an A in General Relativity, an A in Quantum
Statistical Mechanics, B's in Quantum Mechanics, Advanced Math, and
Advanced Dynamics.

Many here just can't get over the fact that some errors in English
prose, is not a reflection of overall ability, or content. Its too
personal now for objective opinions to be made. But again, those
criticizing the paper (Macon, Clarence) simple don't have the
background, and don't know they don't have the background, that's why
they can't produce any of the so called "contradictions" to known
science they claim are in the paper. Its a joke.

So, for those who still havnt seen this web site.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html Lets here some compliants
on the 1st paragraph here
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/einstien/einstien.html.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Clarence wrote:

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:n0h4d.288085$Lj.75506@fed1read03...

I haven't looked at the webpage in question; evidently you analogize
memes and genes. Do you further analogize that genes:chromosomes as
memespinions? If you do, you'll see why you won't gain many converts
here. Opinions are _never_ influenced by objective facts. They have to
be changed internally, and that process _hurts_. Why do you think
Buddhists symbolize enlightenment with a lightning bolt? You have
provided what looks like a memetic lightning rod, and naturally people
want to reject it on the off chance (from their POV) that if they take
hold of it, even tentatively, just to see what it is, they'll get struck.

You didn't read it, so without knowing why, you criticize others for rejecting
a poorly written and confusing paper which disagrees with know and acceptable
science?

I made an assumption (about Kevin's possible analogization) and
deduced from there. If you choose to take offense at that on others'
behalf, go right ahead; I just don't care.

As for you, if you choose to take personal offense, let's deal with
that. First, I see no reason to criticize mere writing skills; content
matters more to me than form. You may disagree, but again, I just don't
care.

Your degree of confusion is your problem alone. Did you ever read (an
extreme example) _Finnegan's Wake_? How much of it did you understand?
And no, I'm not elevating Kevin to Joyce's status.

Now as to the content; exactly which part(s) of the material in
question (now that I've read it) do you claim disagrees with known
(correct spelling BTW) science? You'll note that I left out "acceptable"
as I just don't care what you deem acceptable, or why.

You miss the point entirely, thereby providing support for that which you say
you do not support. Your statements above are of course your own opinions and
are not supportable by any facts or studies. Change does not 'hurt,' it is a
daily part of life, as is encountering new information (facts) which will
easily influence an attitude or opinion.

"Change does not hurt"? What planet do you live on? Yes, it is indeed
a daily part of life, yet most people do their level best to pretend
otherwise because change generally introduces unknowns, which we know by
experience can be hazardous. Generally this is a good policy, but
failing to deal with change can also be hazardous.

As to facts "easily" influencing opinions, ask several regulars here
whether their opinions are influenced at all by the demonstration that
Dan Rather presented faked documents that supported _his_ opinion (if
you don't mind a little political interjection).

However these changes must be
rational and understandable, or otherwise fit into a coherent discipline in
order to be integrated into our consciousness. The Paper in questions fails
the test of being easily understood and contains many conflicts with accepted
science.

Qm is hard to understand. It does not fit into the previously
accepted ideas of "rationality" expressed in relevant disciplines, yet
it's quite accepted. Do you have a similar problem with it?

Again, exactly how does Kevin's work conflict with science?

Do not ask me why. The reasons have all been discussed to death in this
thread, and I spent far too much time trying to analyze the paper for
structure, coherent flow of thought, and accuracy. I could not complete that
task due to the many disconnects. Including dead end assumptions which were
not simply discussion, but in all likelihood, not acceptable constructs.

Not to mention free-standing sentence fragments, like the end of your
paragraph?

I will not reply to questions, this entire thread is a waste of the resource.

Then sir, you are an intellectual hit-and-run coward. Kindly prove
that statement wrong.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Mark Fergerson]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness
wrote (in <n0h4d.288085$Lj.75506@fed1read03&gt about 'Ping Kevin Aylward
- re your "scientific paper"', on Wed, 22 Sep 2004:

How's that?


Excellent!

Glad you liked it. Get zapped often? ;&gt

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Chris Holmes]

Zorpetus wrote:

Is there any modem connection sniffer hardware/software?

I mean a device (tap) that could be connected to a phone line,
and to record network traffic made over dial-up connection over
that telephone line (for V.90 protocol for example). I am not
reffering to those "com port sniffer" or "modem sniffers" that
have to be installed on the "target" PC, but something that would
be used outside the house, by tapping the telephone lines.


Any hint and/or link is more than welcome!

And of course - I need it only for information purpose!

Yes, this should be possible. In fact, I heard about one device that
could sniff a modem (external) connection from a good distance by
"watching" the TX and RX activity LEDs on the front panel!

Chris

 

[Zach Zaborny]

Thanks Bill, that is exactly what I need. I'm picking up another LM317 at
the electronic surplus store today to try 'er.

-Zach

"Bill Bowden" <wrongaddress@att.net> wrote in message
news:ad025737.0409211948.e42200f@posting.google.com...

wrongaddress@att.net (Bill Bowden) wrote in message
news:<ad025737.0409211222.3d8c9454@posting.google.com>...
"Zach Zaborny" <random@nts-technologies.org> wrote in message
news:<10ks4r3nt2cvo8f@corp.supernews.com>...
I do not think you guys know what I want from this power supply. Let
me
rephrase myself.

I am building a benchtop power supply, for general use testing and
powering
some circuits. It will be used for powering small motors, logic
circuits of
all kinds, and more. A good range for all that is 1.5V-24V at
1mA-500mA
since most of my projects have ever required any more than that. I
want to
be able to adjust output current and output voltage separately.

The circuit as it is now doesn't seem to be working. When it is
powered on,
the volts meter is at 24VDC and the amp meter is at 0 because there is
no
load and it will not work without one (see the schematic for an
explanation). When a load is applied (in this case, a cassette deck
drive
motor), the votlmeter goes down to about 12v and the milliamp meter
goes to
about 200mA. I have two rheostats, (seen in the schematic), one is for
voltage and one is for current, When I change the voltage one, the
current
changes a little also.

What am I doing wrong in the circuit?



The current control part doesn't look too good.
It looks like the input to the 7805 will have to
be about 7 volts higher than the output and at 500mA
you will be wasting 3.5 watts of power in the
7805 and 50,10 ohm resistors.

Try testing the circuit with the cassette load
and voltmeter connected directly to the LM317
output. The LM317 will not need a load since the
resistor R1 is drawing about 12mA which should be enough.
So the voltmeter should read a constant 12 volts
or whatever with the cassette on or off.

You can use a second LM317 as a current control
with much better efficiency since the drop on
current sense resistor will only be 1.25 volts
as opposed to 5 for the 7805.

-Bill


If you put the current limit control in front of the
voltage control, the regulation will be better since
the output voltage will not fall off as the drop on
the current sense resistor increases. Something like
below.

The current resistor will be about 2.5 ohms for 500mA
and proportionally higher for less current.
5 ohms = 250mA, etc. The input voltage needs to be
about 2 volts higher than the output for each
regulator, plus the 1.25 drop on the current resistor,
so to get 24 volts out, you need about 30 volts in.

Current
+- - - - - - - -+ Adjust +- - - - - - - -+
DC in --| LM317 |---\/\/\---+------| LM317
|-----+----Out
| | | | | |
+- - - - - - - -+ | +- - - - - - - -+ \
| | | /
| | | 100 \
+-------------------+ | |
+------------+
|
\
V Adjust /
2K \
|
GND
-Bill

 

[Rolavine]

From: jdurban@vorel.com (Product developer)

rolavine@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote
From: jdurban@vorel.com (Product developer)

snip
Not to beat a dead horse or donkey in this case, but I can't beleive
that anyone would vote for Kerry. He's an empty suit saying something
different every day looking for anything that will get some traction.

Vs. Bush that just keeps mouthing the same old lies to his adoring drooling
fans, sheesh. Lies like everything is fine in Iraq! I can't believe anyone
woud
vote for Bush, it's hard to believe that anyone would love failure that
much.

These are only lies to the uniformed or rabid liberals which is really
one in the same.

Very funny, and you expect me to take you seriously, no one is buying your
shit.

Kerry supporters remind me of Carefree chewing gum commercial where
the tag line said "4 out of 5 dentists recommend sugerless gum to
their patients who chew gum". Who was the one dentist who voted
against sugerless gum?!

Deep political thought here, I'll call a philospher or two and get back to
you
on that. Bush reminds me of a commercial too, they both lie, distort and
try to
pimp something that just ain't so.

I realize that you are a small time hack having so little work that
you can afford to spend 75% of your time here in the sand box but I
didn't think the sugarless gum analogy would be too much for even you.

You are prob. on welfare, and a total fraud.

Let me explain. It is obvious that sugarless gum would be preferable
to sugar laced gum when good dental health is considered. If a poll
were taken among 5 qualified dentists and only four out of the five
could reach a consensus that the sugarless gum was preferable even
with all the proven and well established data supporting the sugarless
gum being the only choice, how could one of the 5 dentists not be
agreement?

You had time for that huh, HA! Plato warned of thinking though analogy but I'm

sure you never read the man, or any other thinker in your life.

Now to associate my brilliant yet simple analogy to the political
climate today.

LOL!

It has been established that democrats in general, are anti-military
and soft on defense.

Nope, nothing has been established by you other than your stupidity and abilty
to buy the big lie.

In light of the fact that one of the major
factors that led to 9/11 was a failure to address and deal with
Bin-Laden in the Trade Center bombings and the USS Cole attack we have
to examine who was in charge at the time. When Bin-Laden was offered
up by the Sudanese not once but 3 times subsequent to the two attacks
Bill Clinton turned down the offers.

Oh yeah, it was just that simple. Clinton didn't want Osama that is why he

authorized shooting over 60 cruise missles at him, and had major teams looking
for him. This is just more dishonorable shit, and in this case disguised, not
very wel,l as an argument.

If it an indisputable and established fact that democrats are weak on
defense and soft on crime,

More BS, Kerry is the man behind the COPS bill that put 100,000 more cops on
the streets. You are just an endless source of certain 'indiputable and
established' opinions that are just plain Wrong.

who in their right mind

You have not earned the use of that phrase!

would think, in
light of all the evidence,

Your definition of evidence is whatever you pull out of your ass, right?

that not only a democrat, but the most
liberal democrat in the senate, would be a good fit for commander in
chief?

Define liberal first so we can check Kerrys voting record. I checked and find
him to be one of the most fiscally conservative members of the Senate. He has
voted pro choice, pro labor, and for the environment. If that makes him a
liberal that must mean liberal is really good.

The simple analogy only fails in the examination of those polled. Five
dentists skilled in their art is vastly different than five voters who
can avail themselves to the exact same irrefutable evidence and based
on their personal biases walk away with a totally skewed
interpretation.

More time for this, isn't your carpet cleaning business getting behind!

You need to take some philosophy classes, or at least read some. Your sense of
a resoned argument is absurd. Your factless, opinon filled, presentation reads
like a roadmap of your brainwashing. You need to begin to question each given,
see where your perceptions came from, and go beyond it. If your an adult please
start thinking like one.

Rocky

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <gk53l0hjste9g41655dgc8volbnpj2nldn@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:46:37 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <idq1l0h635idj0ha75jctqb6iuil5b5utr@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:
[...]
Jay Leno noted that even Kerry's hobbies depend on wind direction.

vs Bush who when told that we are on a run away train into uncharted
waters said "stay the course".


Did Jay Leno say that too?

Not that I know of he didn't. If he did, he stole the "ran away train
into uncharted waters" part from a US senator who's name I can't remember
at the minute.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge