more EE Times nonsense
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 19 Apr 2010 12:16 On Apr 19, 4:26 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 03:16:16 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Apr 18, 5:38 pm, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 04:15:27 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Apr 16, 6:38 pm, John Larkin > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:47:34 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >On Apr 14, 2:01 am, John Larkin > >> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:00:49 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >On Apr 13, 9:58 pm, John Larkin > >> >> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:49:50 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >On Apr 13, 6:39 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 13, 11:14 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> > On Apr 13, 6:00 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > > On Apr 13, 2:31 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi..demon.co.uk> > >> >> >> >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > > > It is EE Times that has bastardised the original article. > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/belcher-water-0412..html > > >> >> >> >> >> > > Hey, just what we needed--a virus to get loose and bust all Earth's > >> >> >> >> >> > > water to oxygen and hydrogen. > > >> >> >> >> >> > Do read the article. The virus just provides the scaffold for the > >> >> >> >> >> > active nanoscale components, and MIT was merely boasting about having > >> >> >> >> >> > developed the bit that would split off oxygen; the part that would > >> >> >> >> >> > split off hydrogen is still under development. > > >> >> >> >> >> Humor. It's a higher function. > > >> >> >> >> >Looks more like inept plagarism to me - science-fiction writers have > >> >> >> >> >been putting together duff end-of-the-world nanotechnology stories for > >> >> >> >> >at least a decade now, and you've just copied the neglect-of- > >> >> >> >> >conservation-of-energy aspect to try and make a feeble, unoriginal and > >> >> >> >> >irrelevant joke. > > >> >> >> >> >As humour, it certainly high - dead and decaying - but scarcely > >> >> >> >> >functional. > > >> >> >> >> Humor is fundamentally associated with design ability. Both require > >> >> >> >> welcoming ambiguity and seeing things from numerous different > >> >> >> >> perspectives. > > >> >> >> >Then James Arthur must be defectve in design ability, if that was his > >> >> >> >idea of humour. > > >> >> >> I know that he's not, and I know that you are. > > >> >> >Since your information about my design ability is defective, I don't > >> >> >see any reason to trust your opinion about his. Both are likely > >> >> >invented to make you feel better. > > >> >> >> And he has a great singing voice. > > >> >> >According to Edmund Crispin, the resonant space inside the head > >> >> >requried for a great singing voice uses up skull volume that could > >> >> >otherwise have been occupied by brains, and James Arthur's mindless > >> >> >endorsement of right-wing idiocies does imply that his skull is > >> >> >largely empy. > > >> >> >> And he's a pretty good cook. > > >> >> >Who isn't? > > >> >> >> Do you sing or cook? We know you don't design. > > >> >> >I don't sing - not enough resonat spaces inside the skull - though I > >> >> >do play the piano (without much experise). I do cook. And I do design > >> >> >electronic circuits from time to time, despite your inability to > >> >> >process information to the contrary. > > >> >> >> >> You wouldn't understand. > > >> >> >> >John Larkin once again reinvents reality to suit his perverse point of > >> >> >> >view. He doesn't recognise a real joke when he sees one in the > >> >> >> >mirror ... > > >> >> >> Get a job, bozo. Design some electronics. > > >> >> >I've been trying to get another job for the past six years. It hasn't > >> >> >worked, but not for want of effort. You've needed to learn a bit more > >> >> >about the world outside electronics for a whole lot longer, and > >> >> >there's absolutely no evidence that you've realised this yet, let > >> >> >alone done something about it - the books you do claim to read are all > >> >> >neatly packaged misinformation designed to make Republicans feel happy > >> >> >about their favourite delusions - anytime now you will be quoting from > >> >> >Sarah Palin's text-book on international politics (which someone is > >> >> >probably ghosting for her even now). > > >> >> Wow, I never knew that Jane Austen and Anthony Trollope and P G > >> >> Wodehouse and William Shakespeare were Republicans. That's actually > >> >> comforting, and makes sense. They all understood how the world works. > > >> >Since the books I was referring to were the ones that you had > >> >previously claimed - in this forum - to have read, which didn't > >> >include any of the authors listed above, you aren't entitled to claim > >> >that I think that any of the authors listed above are Republicans. > > >> >P.G.Wodehouse mght well have voted Republican if he had the chance - > >> >when he was stuck in German-occupied France he did collaborate with > >> >the Nazi occupiers to the extent of making a radio-broadcast, which > >> >made him distinctly unpopular in the UK for the rest of his life. > > >> As opposed to most of the French, who herded their fellow citizens > >> into boxcars. > > >Some of the French. There was also a fairly lively French resistance > >who managed to save quite a few Jews - three hundred were smuggled out > >of the country and somewhere between seven and nine thousand Jewish > >children were saved by getting them false papers. In the end, 26% of > >French Jews (90,000) were killed by the Nazis - a relatively low > >proportion compared with other occupied countries. The Danes did a lot > >better - they lost less than 1% of their Jews (52 out of 8,000) - but > >they were exceptional. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust > > >> His "collaboration" was apparently naiive and innocent. He was pretty > >> much an American anyhow, so his popularity in post-war UK is sort of > >> moot. > > >He did become an American citizen in 1955. Like Lindbergh, his Nazi > >taint was weak enough not to upset American opinion. > > Gosh, you are one nasty piece of work. And the Tea Party movement represents an attractive aspect of modern America? -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: JosephKK on 19 Apr 2010 14:10 On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:32:33 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:09:24 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >>The problem with your argument lies in your implicit claim to be able >>to recognise humour when you see it. > >--- >If that's what you're basing your argument on, then you don't have an >argument since I have a keen eye for humor. >--- > >>Since you aren't in the habit of making jokes when you post, and don't >>seem to react to comic posts by other people, your claim that I don't >>understand humour comes down to your failure to recognise humour when >>you see it. > >--- >Hardly. I often post jokes and have enjoyed (and commented on) humor >posted by others. > >Including the likes of John Woodgate who, compared to you, is a >veritable Robin Williams. > >But how can anyone comment on your humor when your life seems to be >bereft of everything but posturing and gratuitous insult? > >Ask anyone here and I'm sure they'll agree that you're a mean old man >with a 200 pond chip on his shoulder. >--- > >>You were hung by your own argument, as I pointed out at >>the time - it's a bit sad that you failed to notice that your >>proposition had been refuted, but it's pretty much par for the course. > >--- >If you truly think you've refuted _anything_, then par, for you, is >running a handicap of about 18. > >Abominable slowman; now _that's_ funny! > >JF
From: JosephKK on 19 Apr 2010 14:15 On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:32:33 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:09:24 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >>The problem with your argument lies in your implicit claim to be able >>to recognise humour when you see it. > >--- >If that's what you're basing your argument on, then you don't have an >argument since I have a keen eye for humor. >--- > >>Since you aren't in the habit of making jokes when you post, and don't >>seem to react to comic posts by other people, your claim that I don't >>understand humour comes down to your failure to recognise humour when >>you see it. > >--- >Hardly. I often post jokes and have enjoyed (and commented on) humor >posted by others. > >Including the likes of John Woodgate who, compared to you, is a >veritable Robin Williams. > >But how can anyone comment on your humor when your life seems to be >bereft of everything but posturing and gratuitous insult? > >Ask anyone here and I'm sure they'll agree that you're a mean old man >with a 200 pond chip on his shoulder. Naw, 1 he couldn't possibly carry that much, 2 that much wood is more amenable to reason, 3 the chip is "inflated" with all his hot air to make it look larger. >--- > >>You were hung by your own argument, as I pointed out at >>the time - it's a bit sad that you failed to notice that your >>proposition had been refuted, but it's pretty much par for the course. > >--- >If you truly think you've refuted _anything_, then par, for you, is >running a handicap of about 18. ^ Add a zero to that, for 180. You always need a zero to discuss slowman. > >Abominable slowman; now _that's_ funny! > >JF Oops on the prepost.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 19 Apr 2010 19:08 JosephKK wrote: > > John Fields wrote: > > >If you truly think you've refuted _anything_, then par, for you, is > >running a handicap of about 18. > ^ > Add a zero to that, for 180. You always need a zero to discuss slowman. That's like dividing a zero, by zero... -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: Bill Sloman on 22 Apr 2010 17:45
On Apr 21, 6:02 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:43:39 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Apr 20, 1:13 pm, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:16:00 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Apr 19, 4:26 pm, John Larkin > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 03:16:16 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >On Apr 18, 5:38 pm, John Larkin > >> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 04:15:27 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >On Apr 16, 6:38 pm, John Larkin > >> >> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:47:34 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >On Apr 14, 2:01 am, John Larkin > >> >> >> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:00:49 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >On Apr 13, 9:58 pm, John Larkin > >> >> >> >> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:49:50 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> >> >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Apr 13, 6:39 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 13, 11:14 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Apr 13, 6:00 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > On Apr 13, 2:31 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > wrote: > > ><snip> > > >> >> >> His "collaboration" was apparently naiive and innocent. He was pretty > >> >> >> much an American anyhow, so his popularity in post-war UK is sort of > >> >> >> moot. > > >> >> >He did become an American citizen in 1955. Like Lindbergh, his Nazi > >> >> >taint was weak enough not to upset American opinion. > > >> >> Gosh, you are one nasty piece of work. > > >> >And the Tea Party movement represents an attractive aspect of modern > >> >America? > > >> The question is, as usual, irrevant, but the answer is emphatically > >> yes. > > >The Tea Party movement resemble the Nazi's in being right-wing > >nitwits, and believing in any number of things that don't happen to be > >true. It took the Nazis a couple of decades to progress from believing > >in right-wing nonsense to the extent of beating up people whose ethnic > >origins they didn't like, to beleiving in it to the extent that they > >tried to exerminate everybody who fitted that particular description. > > OMG, the inevitable Nazi thing. > > The Tea Party types (and I'm not one of them) are on average better > educated and better off than the average American, and not > particularly racist. There are black, asian, and hispanic TPers. A lot > of the Nazi and racist stuff is in fact generated by provocateurs, of > which there are organized groups who try to publicly distort what is > basically a traditional American libertarian movement. The Nazi's - like the Tea Party loonies - portrayed themselves as anti- socialist. The particular Tea Party lunacy that I find particularly unattractive is their argument that Obama's cautious move towards Bismark's universal health insurance is some kind of step towards a dictatorial totalitarian socialist state. Britain, France and Germany all have appreciably more comprehensive national medical insurance schemes, and manage to maintain representative democratic governments - why do the Tea Party nitwits imagine that a less comprehensive version of the same kind of health cover is going to turn the USA into some kind of Orwellian nightmare? Or - more to the point - why do they think that articulating such transparent and obvious nonsense is a route to public acceptance and eventual political power? > >The Tea Party loonies aren't yet talking about "final solutions", but > >since they start off out of touch with reality, one - and in this case > >- you, should worry about how far their unrestrained and irrational > >prejudices could take them. > > Their reality is that we have too much government, and it is largely > inefficient, corrupt, and debilitating. They are mostly correct. If you want bad, corrupt and debilitating government, you need to go to Africa. US and European governments are run by human beings, and thus imperfect, but they do work better than any other system of government that you can point to. Your Republican nitswits have been campaigning for office for years on the basis that they will reduce government and government spending if they get into power, but when they have got into power they've done neither - quite the reverse. You do need apply a few reality checks before you recycle this electoral propaganda. > >It's not such an irrelevant question as you'd like to think, but since > >what you think is pretty much defined by what you'd like to be true, > >you can be expected to have some trouble accepting this. > > Truth is my business. I'm fairly good at it. Where your busniess is concerned you may have some regard for truth - if you made a claim on which you couldn't deliver, your customers would have means and motive to derail your little red waggon. Outside that arena, you regularly make implausible and unsupported claims, because you don't know any better. > You have no business, so your beliefs can drift all around, unguided by real-world feedback. Or so you'd like to think. I spend a lot more time learning about the wider world than you do, and I keep my beliefs rather more closely tied to demonstrable evidence. > Mostly you just like to be mean. By which you mean that I don't respond to your posts with the sort of flattery which you seem to think should be offered to someone who runs a business which hasn't yet gone bankrupt. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |