elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 yea
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
John Fields
Guest
Guest
Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:22 am
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:36:22 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman_at_ieee.org> wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 7, 1:12 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:38:37 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:41:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05collide.html?ref=science
Will run only at half power until 2012.
Not a much better search for the Higgs then the 7 years at 2 TeV that Fermilab already has.
LOL
What a joke.
3.5 TeV for two years may not be much better than 2 TeV for seven
years, but it is still better than nothing, which is what the
theortical physicists had when the super-conducting magnet blew up
The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right.
---
Then your contention is that the blow-up was planned?
No - that it was the kind of teething trouble that you often run into
on large, complicated projects. Not an area you'd know much about.
---
"Teething" is usually an uncomplicated process which requires a modicum
of attention and, on occasion, some coddling.
The incident with the LHC wasn't so much like teething as it was like
having a high-speed spitball spall its way though your jaw from the
inside out, so your claim that English is your first language is belied
by your statement that:
"The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right."
Teething troubles cover a variety of difficulties that show up early
in a project. Since you suffer from inadequate language comprehension,
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:38:37 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:41:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05collide.html?ref=science
Will run only at half power until 2012.
Not a much better search for the Higgs then the 7 years at 2 TeV that Fermilab already has.
LOL
What a joke.
3.5 TeV for two years may not be much better than 2 TeV for seven
years, but it is still better than nothing, which is what the
theortical physicists had when the super-conducting magnet blew up
The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right.
---
Then your contention is that the blow-up was planned?
No - that it was the kind of teething trouble that you often run into
on large, complicated projects. Not an area you'd know much about.
---
"Teething" is usually an uncomplicated process which requires a modicum
of attention and, on occasion, some coddling.
The incident with the LHC wasn't so much like teething as it was like
having a high-speed spitball spall its way though your jaw from the
inside out, so your claim that English is your first language is belied
by your statement that:
"The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right."
Teething troubles cover a variety of difficulties that show up early
in a project. Since you suffer from inadequate language comprehension,
---
huh?
---
Quote:
you may indeed find it difficult to generalise from the problems that
parents experience with infant children to the problems that engineers
erun into when commissioning new and complicated pieces of equipment,
parents experience with infant children to the problems that engineers
erun into when commissioning new and complicated pieces of equipment,
---
"erun" into?
Not at all, since I've sired five biological children, delivered one of
them at home, and can easily relate to watching and helping them learn
and grow, much like I can with the non-biological children I've sired.
And you?
---
Quote:
but linguistically competent adults don't usually find this particular
genealisation to be beyond them.
genealisation to be beyond them.
---
Linguistically competent adults don't usually say "genealisation" when
they mean "generalization".
---
Quote:
on two levels.
The first is that, unless you're claiming that the failure was planned,
your statement is outrageously false, and the second is that "Large
Hadron Collider" should be preceded by "the".
If you had enough grasp of English to appreciate the fact that a claim
that "the Large Hadron Colider isn't working right" applied to the
present, rather than than the past, you might be in a position to
quibble about typos.
The first is that, unless you're claiming that the failure was planned,
your statement is outrageously false, and the second is that "Large
Hadron Collider" should be preceded by "the".
If you had enough grasp of English to appreciate the fact that a claim
that "the Large Hadron Colider isn't working right" applied to the
present, rather than than the past, you might be in a position to
quibble about typos.
---
Since the LHC failed to stop "working right" in the past and hasn't, so
far, been made capable of "working right" in the present, your argument
is specious.
JF
Bill Sloman
Guest
Guest
Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:36 am
On Feb 7, 1:12 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:38:37 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:41:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05collide.html?ref=science
Will run only at half power until 2012.
Not a much better search for the Higgs then the 7 years at 2 TeV that Fermilab already has.
LOL
What a joke.
3.5 TeV for two years may not be much better than 2 TeV for seven
years, but it is still better than nothing, which is what the
theortical physicists had when the super-conducting magnet blew up
The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right..
---
Then your contention is that the blow-up was planned?
No - that it was the kind of teething trouble that you often run into
on large, complicated projects. Not an area you'd know much about.
---
"Teething" is usually an uncomplicated process which requires a modicum
of attention and, on occasion, some coddling.
The incident with the LHC wasn't so much like teething as it was like
having a high-speed spitball spall its way though your jaw from the
inside out, so your claim that English is your first language is belied
by your statement that:
"The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right."
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:41:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05collide.html?ref=science
Will run only at half power until 2012.
Not a much better search for the Higgs then the 7 years at 2 TeV that Fermilab already has.
LOL
What a joke.
3.5 TeV for two years may not be much better than 2 TeV for seven
years, but it is still better than nothing, which is what the
theortical physicists had when the super-conducting magnet blew up
The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right..
---
Then your contention is that the blow-up was planned?
No - that it was the kind of teething trouble that you often run into
on large, complicated projects. Not an area you'd know much about.
---
"Teething" is usually an uncomplicated process which requires a modicum
of attention and, on occasion, some coddling.
The incident with the LHC wasn't so much like teething as it was like
having a high-speed spitball spall its way though your jaw from the
inside out, so your claim that English is your first language is belied
by your statement that:
"The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right."
Teething troubles cover a variety of difficulties that show up early
in a project. Since you suffer from inadequate language comprehension,
you may indeed find it difficult to generalise from the problems that
parents experience with infant children to the problems that engineers
erun into when commissioning new and complicated pieces of equipment,
but linguistically competent adults don't usually find this particular
genealisation to be beyond them.
Quote:
on two levels.
The first is that, unless you're claiming that the failure was planned,
your statement is outrageously false, and the second is that "Large
Hadron Collider" should be preceded by "the".
The first is that, unless you're claiming that the failure was planned,
your statement is outrageously false, and the second is that "Large
Hadron Collider" should be preceded by "the".
If you had enough grasp of English to appreciate the fact that a claim
that "the Large Hadron Colider isn't working right" applied to the
present, rather than than the past, you might be in a position to
quibble about typos.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Guest
Guest
Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:03 am
On Feb 6, 11:42 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:00:50 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:04 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:53:25 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:30 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:09:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 4:57 pm, Okkim Atnarivik
Okkim.Atnari...@twentyfour.fi.invalid> wrote:
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years..
After their cryogenic system failed, and after the incident of
some bird having made its nest within the accelerator (causing
a short circuit or something) I started hearing this theory:
Discovery of the Higgs boson will turn out to facilitate time
travel, and now the unverse is protecting causality.
In other words, the accelerator will never work.
A nice theory, but not original.
---
So what?
None of your hydrophobic blather is original either, and yet you don't
seem to mind spewing it ad nauseam.
Not a contention that you have actually proved, and not a contention
that you would be equipped to prove if it happened to be correct
(which it isn't).
---
Well, I guess I was a little hasty in saying that none of your
hydrophobic blather is original when what I should have said was that
very little of your hydrophobic blather is original.
And even though you missed my implication, the point still stands; it
being that you criticize others for repeating what they've heard when
you do the same thing, hypocrite, and expect to get away with it with
impunity.
The difference is that I actually understand a fair bit of what I pick
up and broadcast. This isn't a form of comprehension that you can
either understand or share, so it would be difficult to for you to see
the difference.
Nonsense.
Your raison d'être is to pretend to authority by parroting an
"authoritative" source with which you agree and then to defend your
proselytizing with invective.
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:04 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:53:25 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:30 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:09:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 4:57 pm, Okkim Atnarivik
Okkim.Atnari...@twentyfour.fi.invalid> wrote:
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years..
After their cryogenic system failed, and after the incident of
some bird having made its nest within the accelerator (causing
a short circuit or something) I started hearing this theory:
Discovery of the Higgs boson will turn out to facilitate time
travel, and now the unverse is protecting causality.
In other words, the accelerator will never work.
A nice theory, but not original.
---
So what?
None of your hydrophobic blather is original either, and yet you don't
seem to mind spewing it ad nauseam.
Not a contention that you have actually proved, and not a contention
that you would be equipped to prove if it happened to be correct
(which it isn't).
---
Well, I guess I was a little hasty in saying that none of your
hydrophobic blather is original when what I should have said was that
very little of your hydrophobic blather is original.
And even though you missed my implication, the point still stands; it
being that you criticize others for repeating what they've heard when
you do the same thing, hypocrite, and expect to get away with it with
impunity.
The difference is that I actually understand a fair bit of what I pick
up and broadcast. This isn't a form of comprehension that you can
either understand or share, so it would be difficult to for you to see
the difference.
Nonsense.
Your raison d'être is to pretend to authority by parroting an
"authoritative" source with which you agree and then to defend your
proselytizing with invective.
You - on the other hand - can't find "authorative sources" to support
the drivel you post, probably because you lack that kind of skill,
although the fact that a fair bit of what you post is actually wrong
would make it difficult even if you had mastered google.
Quote:
You may know everything that there is to know about the 555 - except
which modern devices do its job better - but you don't know much about
anything else, as you frequently take pains to tell us.
---
Those are just a couple more of the convenient untruths you try to
peddle as fact by endless, mind-numbing repetition.
As a refutation of the first lie, here's the code for a
crystal-controlled 40kHz astable I designed to drive an IRLED using a
Motorola MC68HC05K1, instead of a 555, about 16 years ago:
Wonderful. You eventually found out about the MC68Hc05 in 1994, and
recognised its potential as a device for replacing a 555 when you
actually wanted stable and predictable timing intervals.
---
Please...
You're preaching to the choir.
I learned how to use crystal oscillators and counter chains to do that
long before the '90's, I was just using that particular instance to
refute your first lie with some fairly dated technology you might
faintly remember since your exposure to it was just in passing.
which modern devices do its job better - but you don't know much about
anything else, as you frequently take pains to tell us.
---
Those are just a couple more of the convenient untruths you try to
peddle as fact by endless, mind-numbing repetition.
As a refutation of the first lie, here's the code for a
crystal-controlled 40kHz astable I designed to drive an IRLED using a
Motorola MC68HC05K1, instead of a 555, about 16 years ago:
Wonderful. You eventually found out about the MC68Hc05 in 1994, and
recognised its potential as a device for replacing a 555 when you
actually wanted stable and predictable timing intervals.
---
Please...
You're preaching to the choir.
I learned how to use crystal oscillators and counter chains to do that
long before the '90's, I was just using that particular instance to
refute your first lie with some fairly dated technology you might
faintly remember since your exposure to it was just in passing.
As far as I know, everybody did. Until tolerably recently, it was more
expensive than a 555 and a few discrete components, but if you did a
little more with the microcontroller, you got better timing pretty
much for free, and the extra cost of the switch (mostly a cheap
MOSFET) that could sink a useful amount of current was less than the
cost of a 555, and you saved some board space.
You seem to have been very slow to wake up to this.
Quote:
How long did the customer have to hang you over a slow fire before he
could persuade you that the 555 was inadequate?
---
You never miss a chance to be obnoxious, do you?
could persuade you that the 555 was inadequate?
---
You never miss a chance to be obnoxious, do you?
Funny that you should mention that.
Quote:
My customer had nothing to do with it, and had a 555 been the device of
choice, that's precisely what I'd have used.
choice, that's precisely what I'd have used.
The customer must have had something to do with it - most of the
gullible idiots who are silly enough to take advantage of your design
skills can apparently be palmed off with the 555.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Guest
Guest
Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:17 am
On Feb 7, 1:20 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 18:11:34 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 6, 12:25 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:47:53 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
14142fc2-aa93-418c-8a41-71bd66d09...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>:
1:0
Actually, you recognised me as someone who hadn't fallen for the Exxon-
Mobil propaganda
Poor Billy,
Exxon Mobil is *against* global warming as I tried to explain to your last remaining neuron,
because if it is cold they sell more fuel and the fuel price goes up.
Since the explanation - as I pointed out at the time - failed to take
into account the the fuel they sell to run air-conditioning units
(like the ones my wife and I have in our cars, even if your bicycle
doesn't feature this kind of luxury)
So you admit that you're part of the problem?
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 6, 12:25 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:47:53 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
14142fc2-aa93-418c-8a41-71bd66d09...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>:
1:0
Actually, you recognised me as someone who hadn't fallen for the Exxon-
Mobil propaganda
Poor Billy,
Exxon Mobil is *against* global warming as I tried to explain to your last remaining neuron,
because if it is cold they sell more fuel and the fuel price goes up.
Since the explanation - as I pointed out at the time - failed to take
into account the the fuel they sell to run air-conditioning units
(like the ones my wife and I have in our cars, even if your bicycle
doesn't feature this kind of luxury)
So you admit that you're part of the problem?
Of course. Flying to Australia and back every year is even more
reprehensible. But limiting our own consumption would make very little
difference. Campaigning for renewable energy sources probably isn't
going to make much difference either, but it is less inconvenient.
Quote:
it was just one more example of
your failure to understand what was actually going on, and now alos
reflects your incapacity to get your head around any new fact that
hasn't been organised into a seductive package by your friendly local
denialist web-site.
---
Strange, but it seems to me that if it's getting hotter outside, then
regardless of who says what, the A/C is going to used more than if it's
cooler outside.
your failure to understand what was actually going on, and now alos
reflects your incapacity to get your head around any new fact that
hasn't been organised into a seductive package by your friendly local
denialist web-site.
---
Strange, but it seems to me that if it's getting hotter outside, then
regardless of who says what, the A/C is going to used more than if it's
cooler outside.
You need to tell Jan Panteltje about this - he seems to think that
Exxon-Mobil only makes profits when the weather is cold.
Quote:
That says, then, that if you believe that consuming fuel to run your A/C
will cause it to get hotter outside, and you think that's a BAD THING,
you should stop using your A/C.
Have you, or does it not get hot enough in Nijmegen for you to practice
what you preach?
will cause it to get hotter outside, and you think that's a BAD THING,
you should stop using your A/C.
Have you, or does it not get hot enough in Nijmegen for you to practice
what you preach?
The car's air-conditioning pretty much only gets used when driving to
and from France during the warmer months of the year. It may make the
world a slightly warmer place, but it does make the inside of the car
appreciably more comfortable. In Nijmegen I mostly just open the
window and rely on convective cooling, but that's not too practical at
European motorway speeds.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Guest
Guest
Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:30 am
On Feb 6, 11:51 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:06:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 6, 2:54 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:52:56 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:44 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:24:21 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 6:15 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:57:49 +0200 (EET)) it happened Okkim
Atnarivik <Okkim.Atnari...@twentyfour.fi.invalid> wrote in
hkhf5t$5e...@epityr.hut.fi>:
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
After their cryogenic system failed, and after the incident of
some bird having made its nest within the accelerator (causing
a short circuit or something) I started hearing this theory:
Discovery of the Higgs boson will turn out to facilitate time
travel, and now the unverse is protecting causality.
In other words, the accelerator will never work.
Regards,
Mikko
Yes I have heard that theory too, from a Nobel winner at that IIRC.
Too many mathematicians and idiots in my view.
Jan Panteltje seems to be well-placed to recognise the idiots.
---
Well, he certainly seems to be able to easily pick you out of the
line-up of the usual suspects.
He'd like to think that I'm an idiot, in that same way that you'd like
to think that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Well, if that's the case, then we're _both_ right.
You'd both like to think so, which is about as close to "right" as you
ever get.
Nonplussed, eh?
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 6, 2:54 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:52:56 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:44 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:24:21 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 6:15 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:57:49 +0200 (EET)) it happened Okkim
Atnarivik <Okkim.Atnari...@twentyfour.fi.invalid> wrote in
hkhf5t$5e...@epityr.hut.fi>:
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
After their cryogenic system failed, and after the incident of
some bird having made its nest within the accelerator (causing
a short circuit or something) I started hearing this theory:
Discovery of the Higgs boson will turn out to facilitate time
travel, and now the unverse is protecting causality.
In other words, the accelerator will never work.
Regards,
Mikko
Yes I have heard that theory too, from a Nobel winner at that IIRC.
Too many mathematicians and idiots in my view.
Jan Panteltje seems to be well-placed to recognise the idiots.
---
Well, he certainly seems to be able to easily pick you out of the
line-up of the usual suspects.
He'd like to think that I'm an idiot, in that same way that you'd like
to think that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Well, if that's the case, then we're _both_ right.
You'd both like to think so, which is about as close to "right" as you
ever get.
Nonplussed, eh?
If you knew what "nonplussed" actually meant, you'd be aware that it
implied a state where I was bewildered and didn't know what to say.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonplussed
Since you are responding to what I did find to say, this just
emphasises your linguistic incompetence.
Quote:
Pity about that. The universe is a cruel hard place, and your
favourite illusions can't conceal the fact that you are both
regretably under-educated.
One with an adequate education shouldn't have to be told that
"regretably" is correctly spelled: 'regrettably'.
Education is no protection against the occasional typo.
True, but one would think it should certainly stave off the flood...
favourite illusions can't conceal the fact that you are both
regretably under-educated.
One with an adequate education shouldn't have to be told that
"regretably" is correctly spelled: 'regrettably'.
Education is no protection against the occasional typo.
True, but one would think it should certainly stave off the flood...
In Texas, an occasional raindrop can be described as a flood. Texans
don't know any better.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Guest
Guest
Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:31 am
On Feb 6, 11:48 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Quote:
John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 18:14:42 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 6, 2:21 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:24:21 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 6:15 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:57:49 +0200 (EET)) it happened Okkim
Atnarivik <Okkim.Atnari...@twentyfour.fi.invalid> wrote in
hkhf5t$5e...@epityr.hut.fi>:
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
After their cryogenic system failed, and after the incident of
some bird having made its nest within the accelerator (causing
a short circuit or something) I started hearing this theory:
Discovery of the Higgs boson will turn out to facilitate time
travel, and now the unverse is protecting causality.
In other words, the accelerator will never work.
Regards,
Mikko
Yes I have heard that theory too, from a Nobel winner at that IIRC.
Too many mathematicians and idiots in my view.
Jan Panteltje seems to be well-placed to recognise the idiots.
---
Well, he certainly seems to be able to easily pick you out of the
line-up of the usual suspects.
Someone who is blind and deaf could pick him out, just by the
overpowering scent of a LOSER. :(
Michael Terrell - being a well-known winner, and widely touted as the
most successful member of his high-school graduating class - wouldn't
know what a loser smelled like, would he?
---
Shucks, Bill, what with all the shit you spew, we all do.
We can smell Sloman all the way across the Atlantic ocean.
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 18:14:42 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 6, 2:21 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:24:21 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 6:15 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:57:49 +0200 (EET)) it happened Okkim
Atnarivik <Okkim.Atnari...@twentyfour.fi.invalid> wrote in
hkhf5t$5e...@epityr.hut.fi>:
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
After their cryogenic system failed, and after the incident of
some bird having made its nest within the accelerator (causing
a short circuit or something) I started hearing this theory:
Discovery of the Higgs boson will turn out to facilitate time
travel, and now the unverse is protecting causality.
In other words, the accelerator will never work.
Regards,
Mikko
Yes I have heard that theory too, from a Nobel winner at that IIRC.
Too many mathematicians and idiots in my view.
Jan Panteltje seems to be well-placed to recognise the idiots.
---
Well, he certainly seems to be able to easily pick you out of the
line-up of the usual suspects.
Someone who is blind and deaf could pick him out, just by the
overpowering scent of a LOSER. :(
Michael Terrell - being a well-known winner, and widely touted as the
most successful member of his high-school graduating class - wouldn't
know what a loser smelled like, would he?
---
Shucks, Bill, what with all the shit you spew, we all do.
We can smell Sloman all the way across the Atlantic ocean.
Odd, since the atmospheric circulation goes the other way. And
Florida's swamps stink badly enough that it is difficult to imagine
that it's citizens can smell anything else - the olfactory sensors do
saturate, and Florida's ambiance is notoriously overwhelming.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Guest
Guest
Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:31 am
On Feb 6, 11:53 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:07:27 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 18:14:42 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 6, 2:21 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:24:21 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 6:15 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:57:49 +0200 (EET)) it happened Okkim
Atnarivik <Okkim.Atnari...@twentyfour.fi.invalid> wrote in
hkhf5t$5e...@epityr.hut.fi>:
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
After their cryogenic system failed, and after the incident of
some bird having made its nest within the accelerator (causing
a short circuit or something) I started hearing this theory:
Discovery of the Higgs boson will turn out to facilitate time
travel, and now the unverse is protecting causality.
In other words, the accelerator will never work.
Regards,
Mikko
Yes I have heard that theory too, from a Nobel winner at that IIRC.
Too many mathematicians and idiots in my view.
Jan Panteltje seems to be well-placed to recognise the idiots.
---
Well, he certainly seems to be able to easily pick you out of the
line-up of the usual suspects.
Someone who is blind and deaf could pick him out, just by the
overpowering scent of a LOSER. :(
Michael Terrell - being a well-known winner, and widely touted as the
most successful member of his high-school graduating class - wouldn't
know what a loser smelled like, would he?
---
Shucks, Bill, what with all the shit you spew, we all do.
And your shit doesn't stink?
---
You tell me; you certainly eat enough of it to know.
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 18:14:42 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 6, 2:21 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:24:21 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 6:15 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:57:49 +0200 (EET)) it happened Okkim
Atnarivik <Okkim.Atnari...@twentyfour.fi.invalid> wrote in
hkhf5t$5e...@epityr.hut.fi>:
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
After their cryogenic system failed, and after the incident of
some bird having made its nest within the accelerator (causing
a short circuit or something) I started hearing this theory:
Discovery of the Higgs boson will turn out to facilitate time
travel, and now the unverse is protecting causality.
In other words, the accelerator will never work.
Regards,
Mikko
Yes I have heard that theory too, from a Nobel winner at that IIRC.
Too many mathematicians and idiots in my view.
Jan Panteltje seems to be well-placed to recognise the idiots.
---
Well, he certainly seems to be able to easily pick you out of the
line-up of the usual suspects.
Someone who is blind and deaf could pick him out, just by the
overpowering scent of a LOSER. :(
Michael Terrell - being a well-known winner, and widely touted as the
most successful member of his high-school graduating class - wouldn't
know what a loser smelled like, would he?
---
Shucks, Bill, what with all the shit you spew, we all do.
And your shit doesn't stink?
---
You tell me; you certainly eat enough of it to know.
You serve it up on a regular basis.
Not unexpectedly, the customers aren't buying any.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Beryl
Guest
Guest
Sun Feb 07, 2010 4:42 am
John Fields wrote:
Quote:
Linguistically competent adults don't usually say "genealisation" when
they mean "generalization".
---
Since the LHC failed to stop "working right" in the past and hasn't, so
they mean "generalization".
---
Since the LHC failed to stop "working right" in the past and hasn't, so
LOL, the LHC 'failed to stop "working right"'.
The saboteurs must feel devastated.
John Fields
Guest
Guest
Sun Feb 07, 2010 1:17 pm
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:42:15 -0800, Beryl <fourl_at_road.net> wrote:
Quote:
John Fields wrote:
Linguistically competent adults don't usually say "genealisation" when
they mean "generalization".
---
Since the LHC failed to stop "working right" in the past and hasn't, so
LOL, the LHC 'failed to stop "working right"'.
The saboteurs must feel devastated.
Linguistically competent adults don't usually say "genealisation" when
they mean "generalization".
---
Since the LHC failed to stop "working right" in the past and hasn't, so
LOL, the LHC 'failed to stop "working right"'.
The saboteurs must feel devastated.
---
Ah, yes...
The tricky double negative. :-)
JF
John Fields
Guest
Guest
Sun Feb 07, 2010 1:51 pm
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 17:30:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman_at_ieee.org> wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 6, 11:51 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:06:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 6, 2:54 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:52:56 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:06:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 6, 2:54 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:52:56 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
Quote:
He'd like to think that I'm an idiot, in that same way that you'd like
to think that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Well, if that's the case, then we're _both_ right.
You'd both like to think so, which is about as close to "right" as you
ever get.
Nonplussed, eh?
If you knew what "nonplussed" actually meant, you'd be aware that it
implied a state where I was bewildered and didn't know what to say.
to think that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Well, if that's the case, then we're _both_ right.
You'd both like to think so, which is about as close to "right" as you
ever get.
Nonplussed, eh?
If you knew what "nonplussed" actually meant, you'd be aware that it
implied a state where I was bewildered and didn't know what to say.
---
Precisely what I meant, since your: 'You'd both like to think so, which
is about as close to "right" as you ever get.' is the sort of IKYABWAI
you always throw out when you've been flummoxed and can't think of some
clever retort.
---
Quote:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonplussed
Since you are responding to what I did find to say, this just
emphasises your linguistic incompetence.
Since you are responding to what I did find to say, this just
emphasises your linguistic incompetence.
---
Go back and read through it a few more times and you may (now that
you've been given a clue) see that what I was responding to was what you
_didn't_ have to say.
---
Quote:
Pity about that. The universe is a cruel hard place, and your
favourite illusions can't conceal the fact that you are both
regretably under-educated.
One with an adequate education shouldn't have to be told that
"regretably" is correctly spelled: 'regrettably'.
Education is no protection against the occasional typo.
True, but one would think it should certainly stave off the flood...
In Texas, an occasional raindrop can be described as a flood. Texans
don't know any better.
favourite illusions can't conceal the fact that you are both
regretably under-educated.
One with an adequate education shouldn't have to be told that
"regretably" is correctly spelled: 'regrettably'.
Education is no protection against the occasional typo.
True, but one would think it should certainly stave off the flood...
In Texas, an occasional raindrop can be described as a flood. Texans
don't know any better.
---
Well, we certainly know the difference between a single raindrop and
perpetual rainfall.
JF
Bill Sloman
Guest
Guest
Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:28 pm
On Feb 7, 2:22 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:36:22 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:12 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:38:37 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:41:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05collide.html?ref=science
Will run only at half power until 2012.
Not a much better search for the Higgs then the 7 years at 2 TeV that Fermilab already has.
LOL
What a joke.
3.5 TeV for two years may not be much better than 2 TeV for seven
years, but it is still better than nothing, which is what the
theortical physicists had when the super-conducting magnet blew up
The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right.
---
Then your contention is that the blow-up was planned?
No - that it was the kind of teething trouble that you often run into
on large, complicated projects. Not an area you'd know much about.
---
"Teething" is usually an uncomplicated process which requires a modicum
of attention and, on occasion, some coddling.
The incident with the LHC wasn't so much like teething as it was like
having a high-speed spitball spall its way though your jaw from the
inside out, so your claim that English is your first language is belied
by your statement that:
"The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right.."
Teething troubles cover a variety of difficulties that show up early
in a project. Since you suffer from inadequate language comprehension,
---
huh?
---
you may indeed find it difficult to generalise from the problems that
parents experience with infant children to the problems that engineers
erun into when commissioning new and complicated pieces of equipment,
---
"erun" into?
Not at all, since I've sired five biological children, delivered one of
them at home, and can easily relate to watching and helping them learn
and grow, much like I can with the non-biological children I've sired.
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:12 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:38:37 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:41:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05collide.html?ref=science
Will run only at half power until 2012.
Not a much better search for the Higgs then the 7 years at 2 TeV that Fermilab already has.
LOL
What a joke.
3.5 TeV for two years may not be much better than 2 TeV for seven
years, but it is still better than nothing, which is what the
theortical physicists had when the super-conducting magnet blew up
The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right.
---
Then your contention is that the blow-up was planned?
No - that it was the kind of teething trouble that you often run into
on large, complicated projects. Not an area you'd know much about.
---
"Teething" is usually an uncomplicated process which requires a modicum
of attention and, on occasion, some coddling.
The incident with the LHC wasn't so much like teething as it was like
having a high-speed spitball spall its way though your jaw from the
inside out, so your claim that English is your first language is belied
by your statement that:
"The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right.."
Teething troubles cover a variety of difficulties that show up early
in a project. Since you suffer from inadequate language comprehension,
---
huh?
---
you may indeed find it difficult to generalise from the problems that
parents experience with infant children to the problems that engineers
erun into when commissioning new and complicated pieces of equipment,
---
"erun" into?
Not at all, since I've sired five biological children, delivered one of
them at home, and can easily relate to watching and helping them learn
and grow, much like I can with the non-biological children I've sired.
If you could understand what was written, you would have understood
the the problem wasn't understanding the problems that infants present
to their parents (which you may well understand) but the problems that
come up when engineers run into when commissioning a new and
complicated piece of equipment, which you clearly don't.
Quote:
And you?
I've had to learn about unfants' problem vicariously from friends and
relatives - I've got eight nieces and nephews, and four grand-nieces
and -nephews, so I've heard quite a lot about the subject.
Quote:
but linguistically competent adults don't usually find this particular
generalisation to be beyond them.
---
Linguistically competent adults don't usually say "generalisation" when
they mean "generalization".
generalisation to be beyond them.
---
Linguistically competent adults don't usually say "generalisation" when
they mean "generalization".
Americans do spell generalisation with a "z" but outside America the
spelling with an "s" is an accepted variation.
Quote:
---
on two levels.
The first is that, unless you're claiming that the failure was planned,
your statement is outrageously false, and the second is that "Large
Hadron Collider" should be preceded by "the".
If you had enough grasp of English to appreciate the fact that a claim
that "the Large Hadron Colider isn't working right" applied to the
present, rather than than the past, you might be in a position to
quibble about typos.
---
Since the LHC failed to stop "working right" in the past and hasn't, so
far, been made capable of "working right" in the present, your argument
is specious.
on two levels.
The first is that, unless you're claiming that the failure was planned,
your statement is outrageously false, and the second is that "Large
Hadron Collider" should be preceded by "the".
If you had enough grasp of English to appreciate the fact that a claim
that "the Large Hadron Colider isn't working right" applied to the
present, rather than than the past, you might be in a position to
quibble about typos.
---
Since the LHC failed to stop "working right" in the past and hasn't, so
far, been made capable of "working right" in the present, your argument
is specious.
It's working fine - at 3.5 TeV - at the moment. The operators plan to
let it run at that level for a while before starting to crank it up to
the design level of 7 TeV. There's nothing wrong with working at 3.5
TeV. At least 49 of the super-conductiong magnets are going to have to
be "retrained" so that they will remain super-conducting when
generating the magnetic fields appropriate to 7 TeV - they were got
there once (ar manufacture), but apparently the wiring has forgotten
its "training" and will have to worked up to its design levels again.
this is going to take a while. and the operators want to get some
physics out of what they have got before making the next step.
It's a big and complicated system which is now doing almost everything
that it was designed to do, and in that sense it is "working right".
It hasn't yet got to the design target of 7 TeV, but the route is
clear, and the operators have a perfect right to decide how fast they
will move along it.
It's your argument that is specious, based as it is on your own
restricted experience with rather less complicated and demanding
projects.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Fields
Guest
Guest
Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:40 pm
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 05:28:14 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman_at_ieee.org> wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 7, 2:22 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:36:22 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:12 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:38:37 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:41:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05collide.html?ref=science
Will run only at half power until 2012.
Not a much better search for the Higgs then the 7 years at 2 TeV that Fermilab already has.
LOL
What a joke.
3.5 TeV for two years may not be much better than 2 TeV for seven
years, but it is still better than nothing, which is what the
theortical physicists had when the super-conducting magnet blew up
The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right.
---
Then your contention is that the blow-up was planned?
No - that it was the kind of teething trouble that you often run into
on large, complicated projects. Not an area you'd know much about.
---
"Teething" is usually an uncomplicated process which requires a modicum
of attention and, on occasion, some coddling.
The incident with the LHC wasn't so much like teething as it was like
having a high-speed spitball spall its way though your jaw from the
inside out, so your claim that English is your first language is belied
by your statement that:
"The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right."
Teething troubles cover a variety of difficulties that show up early
in a project. Since you suffer from inadequate language comprehension,
---
huh?
---
you may indeed find it difficult to generalise from the problems that
parents experience with infant children to the problems that engineers
erun into when commissioning new and complicated pieces of equipment,
---
"erun" into?
Not at all, since I've sired five biological children, delivered one of
them at home, and can easily relate to watching and helping them learn
and grow, much like I can with the non-biological children I've sired.
If you could understand what was written, you would have understood
the the problem wasn't understanding the problems that infants present
to their parents (which you may well understand) but the problems that
come up when engineers run into when commissioning a new and
complicated piece of equipment, which you clearly don't.
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:36:22 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:12 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:38:37 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:41:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05collide.html?ref=science
Will run only at half power until 2012.
Not a much better search for the Higgs then the 7 years at 2 TeV that Fermilab already has.
LOL
What a joke.
3.5 TeV for two years may not be much better than 2 TeV for seven
years, but it is still better than nothing, which is what the
theortical physicists had when the super-conducting magnet blew up
The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right.
---
Then your contention is that the blow-up was planned?
No - that it was the kind of teething trouble that you often run into
on large, complicated projects. Not an area you'd know much about.
---
"Teething" is usually an uncomplicated process which requires a modicum
of attention and, on occasion, some coddling.
The incident with the LHC wasn't so much like teething as it was like
having a high-speed spitball spall its way though your jaw from the
inside out, so your claim that English is your first language is belied
by your statement that:
"The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right."
Teething troubles cover a variety of difficulties that show up early
in a project. Since you suffer from inadequate language comprehension,
---
huh?
---
you may indeed find it difficult to generalise from the problems that
parents experience with infant children to the problems that engineers
erun into when commissioning new and complicated pieces of equipment,
---
"erun" into?
Not at all, since I've sired five biological children, delivered one of
them at home, and can easily relate to watching and helping them learn
and grow, much like I can with the non-biological children I've sired.
If you could understand what was written, you would have understood
the the problem wasn't understanding the problems that infants present
to their parents (which you may well understand) but the problems that
come up when engineers run into when commissioning a new and
complicated piece of equipment, which you clearly don't.
---
Au contraire!
The problems involved in commissioning new and complicated pieces of
equipment are clearly analogous to the problems involved in bringing up
children and turning them into fully functional adult humans but, having
no children of your own, how would you know?
---
Quote:
And you?
I've had to learn about unfants' problem vicariously from friends and
relatives - I've got eight nieces and nephews, and four grand-nieces
and -nephews, so I've heard quite a lot about the subject.
I've had to learn about unfants' problem vicariously from friends and
relatives - I've got eight nieces and nephews, and four grand-nieces
and -nephews, so I've heard quite a lot about the subject.
---
Oh, please...
Even someone as pig-headed as you are must realize that hearing about it
isn't the same as being there.
---
Quote:
but linguistically competent adults don't usually find this particular
generalisation to be beyond them.
---
Linguistically competent adults don't usually say "generalisation" when
they mean "generalization".
generalisation to be beyond them.
---
Linguistically competent adults don't usually say "generalisation" when
they mean "generalization".
---
Cheater...
Here's the original:
<QUOTE>
Quote:
but linguistically competent adults don't usually find this particular
genealisation to be beyond them.
genealisation to be beyond them.
---
Linguistically competent adults don't usually say "genealisation" when
they mean "generalization".
---
<END QUOTE>
Quote:
Americans do spell generalisation with a "z" but outside America the
spelling with an "s" is an accepted variation.
---
on two levels.
The first is that, unless you're claiming that the failure was planned,
your statement is outrageously false, and the second is that "Large
Hadron Collider" should be preceded by "the".
If you had enough grasp of English to appreciate the fact that a claim
that "the Large Hadron Colider isn't working right" applied to the
present, rather than than the past, you might be in a position to
quibble about typos.
---
Since the LHC failed to stop "working right" in the past and hasn't, so
far, been made capable of "working right" in the present, your argument
is specious.
It's working fine - at 3.5 TeV - at the moment. The operators plan to
let it run at that level for a while before starting to crank it up to
the design level of 7 TeV.
---
Wise move, but "working fine" at 3.5 TeV isn't quite the same as working
properly at 7 TeV.
---
Quote:
There's nothing wrong with working at 3.5 TeV.
---
Other than the fact that it was designed to work at 7 TeV and blew up
last time it tried to get there, you're right on the money.
---
Quote:
At least 49 of the super-conductiong magnets are going to have to
be "retrained" so that they will remain super-conducting when
generating the magnetic fields appropriate to 7 TeV - they were got
there once (ar manufacture), but apparently the wiring has forgotten
its "training" and will have to worked up to its design levels again.
be "retrained" so that they will remain super-conducting when
generating the magnetic fields appropriate to 7 TeV - they were got
there once (ar manufacture), but apparently the wiring has forgotten
its "training" and will have to worked up to its design levels again.
---
Hmmm...
Since having to "retrain" the unruly magnets wasn't part of the initial
scheme, then the machine (although able to limp along at 3.5 TeV) is
still broken.
---
Quote:
this is going to take a while. and the operators want to get some
physics out of what they have got before making the next step.
physics out of what they have got before making the next step.
---
Uh, yeah, it's still broke, but we can get some use out of it until it's
fixed...
Sounds like spin control to me.
---
Quote:
It's a big and complicated system which is now doing almost everything
that it was designed to do, and in that sense it is "working right".
that it was designed to do, and in that sense it is "working right".
---
Sorry, Charlie, but much like an ocean liner designed to get to 30 knots
yet can only get to 15 knots during sea trials, it won't be working
right until it reaches its stated design goals.
---
Quote:
It hasn't yet got to the design target of 7 TeV, but the route is
clear, and the operators have a perfect right to decide how fast they
will move along it.
clear, and the operators have a perfect right to decide how fast they
will move along it.
---
I'm sure the route was clear last time too...
---
Quote:
It's your argument that is specious, based as it is on your own
restricted experience with rather less complicated and demanding
projects.
restricted experience with rather less complicated and demanding
projects.
---
Hey, asshole, I'm not the one claiming the LHC is "working fine", am I?
JF
Fred Abse
Guest
Guest
Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:05 pm
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 17:30:33 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
Quote:
In Texas, an occasional raindrop can be described as a flood. Texans don't
know any better.
know any better.
Tell that to the residents of Corpus Christi ;-(
--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
(Stephen Leacock)
Fred Abse
Guest
Guest
Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:05 pm
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 13:22:24 -0800, SoothSayer wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:00:45 -0600, John Fields
jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 07:11:14 -0800 (PST), MooseFET <kensmith_at_rahul.net
wrote:
On Feb 6, 5:54 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:52:56 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
Pity about that. The universe is a cruel hard place, and your
favourite illusions can't conceal the fact that you are both
regretably under-educated.
---
One with an adequate education shouldn't have to be told that
"regretably" is correctly spelled: 'regrettably'.
It is a dam poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word.
---
I cunt agree more. :-)
JF
Wood Eye... Would I...
Hair Lip... Hare Lip...
jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 07:11:14 -0800 (PST), MooseFET <kensmith_at_rahul.net
wrote:
On Feb 6, 5:54 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:52:56 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
Pity about that. The universe is a cruel hard place, and your
favourite illusions can't conceal the fact that you are both
regretably under-educated.
---
One with an adequate education shouldn't have to be told that
"regretably" is correctly spelled: 'regrettably'.
It is a dam poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word.
---
I cunt agree more. :-)
JF
Wood Eye... Would I...
Hair Lip... Hare Lip...
Dire Rear... Diarrhea
--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
(Stephen Leacock)
John Fields Loves Bill Sl
Guest
Guest
Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:15 pm
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 08:40:47 -0600, John Fields
<jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 05:28:14 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:22 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:36:22 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:12 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:38:37 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:41:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05collide.html?ref=science
Will run only at half power until 2012.
Not a much better search for the Higgs then the 7 years at 2 TeV that Fermilab already has.
LOL
What a joke.
3.5 TeV for two years may not be much better than 2 TeV for seven
years, but it is still better than nothing, which is what the
theortical physicists had when the super-conducting magnet blew up
The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right.
---
Then your contention is that the blow-up was planned?
No - that it was the kind of teething trouble that you often run into
on large, complicated projects. Not an area you'd know much about.
---
"Teething" is usually an uncomplicated process which requires a modicum
of attention and, on occasion, some coddling.
The incident with the LHC wasn't so much like teething as it was like
having a high-speed spitball spall its way though your jaw from the
inside out, so your claim that English is your first language is belied
by your statement that:
"The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right."
Teething troubles cover a variety of difficulties that show up early
in a project. Since you suffer from inadequate language comprehension,
---
huh?
---
you may indeed find it difficult to generalise from the problems that
parents experience with infant children to the problems that engineers
erun into when commissioning new and complicated pieces of equipment,
---
"erun" into?
Not at all, since I've sired five biological children, delivered one of
them at home, and can easily relate to watching and helping them learn
and grow, much like I can with the non-biological children I've sired.
If you could understand what was written, you would have understood
the the problem wasn't understanding the problems that infants present
to their parents (which you may well understand) but the problems that
come up when engineers run into when commissioning a new and
complicated piece of equipment, which you clearly don't.
---
Au contraire!
The problems involved in commissioning new and complicated pieces of
equipment are clearly analogous to the problems involved in bringing up
children and turning them into fully functional adult humans but, having
no children of your own, how would you know?
---
And you?
I've had to learn about unfants' problem vicariously from friends and
relatives - I've got eight nieces and nephews, and four grand-nieces
and -nephews, so I've heard quite a lot about the subject.
---
Oh, please...
Even someone as pig-headed as you are must realize that hearing about it
isn't the same as being there.
---
but linguistically competent adults don't usually find this particular
generalisation to be beyond them.
---
Linguistically competent adults don't usually say "generalisation" when
they mean "generalization".
---
Cheater...
Here's the original:
QUOTE
but linguistically competent adults don't usually find this particular
genealisation to be beyond them.
---
Linguistically competent adults don't usually say "genealisation" when
they mean "generalization".
---
END QUOTE
Americans do spell generalisation with a "z" but outside America the
spelling with an "s" is an accepted variation.
---
on two levels.
The first is that, unless you're claiming that the failure was planned,
your statement is outrageously false, and the second is that "Large
Hadron Collider" should be preceded by "the".
If you had enough grasp of English to appreciate the fact that a claim
that "the Large Hadron Colider isn't working right" applied to the
present, rather than than the past, you might be in a position to
quibble about typos.
---
Since the LHC failed to stop "working right" in the past and hasn't, so
far, been made capable of "working right" in the present, your argument
is specious.
It's working fine - at 3.5 TeV - at the moment. The operators plan to
let it run at that level for a while before starting to crank it up to
the design level of 7 TeV.
---
Wise move, but "working fine" at 3.5 TeV isn't quite the same as working
properly at 7 TeV.
---
There's nothing wrong with working at 3.5 TeV.
---
Other than the fact that it was designed to work at 7 TeV and blew up
last time it tried to get there, you're right on the money.
---
At least 49 of the super-conductiong magnets are going to have to
be "retrained" so that they will remain super-conducting when
generating the magnetic fields appropriate to 7 TeV - they were got
there once (ar manufacture), but apparently the wiring has forgotten
its "training" and will have to worked up to its design levels again.
---
Hmmm...
Since having to "retrain" the unruly magnets wasn't part of the initial
scheme, then the machine (although able to limp along at 3.5 TeV) is
still broken.
---
this is going to take a while. and the operators want to get some
physics out of what they have got before making the next step.
---
Uh, yeah, it's still broke, but we can get some use out of it until it's
fixed...
Sounds like spin control to me.
---
It's a big and complicated system which is now doing almost everything
that it was designed to do, and in that sense it is "working right".
---
Sorry, Charlie, but much like an ocean liner designed to get to 30 knots
yet can only get to 15 knots during sea trials, it won't be working
right until it reaches its stated design goals.
---
It hasn't yet got to the design target of 7 TeV, but the route is
clear, and the operators have a perfect right to decide how fast they
will move along it.
---
I'm sure the route was clear last time too...
---
It's your argument that is specious, based as it is on your own
restricted experience with rather less complicated and demanding
projects.
---
Hey, asshole, I'm not the one claiming the LHC is "working fine", am I?
JF
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:22 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:36:22 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:12 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:38:37 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:41:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05collide.html?ref=science
Will run only at half power until 2012.
Not a much better search for the Higgs then the 7 years at 2 TeV that Fermilab already has.
LOL
What a joke.
3.5 TeV for two years may not be much better than 2 TeV for seven
years, but it is still better than nothing, which is what the
theortical physicists had when the super-conducting magnet blew up
The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right.
---
Then your contention is that the blow-up was planned?
No - that it was the kind of teething trouble that you often run into
on large, complicated projects. Not an area you'd know much about.
---
"Teething" is usually an uncomplicated process which requires a modicum
of attention and, on occasion, some coddling.
The incident with the LHC wasn't so much like teething as it was like
having a high-speed spitball spall its way though your jaw from the
inside out, so your claim that English is your first language is belied
by your statement that:
"The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right."
Teething troubles cover a variety of difficulties that show up early
in a project. Since you suffer from inadequate language comprehension,
---
huh?
---
you may indeed find it difficult to generalise from the problems that
parents experience with infant children to the problems that engineers
erun into when commissioning new and complicated pieces of equipment,
---
"erun" into?
Not at all, since I've sired five biological children, delivered one of
them at home, and can easily relate to watching and helping them learn
and grow, much like I can with the non-biological children I've sired.
If you could understand what was written, you would have understood
the the problem wasn't understanding the problems that infants present
to their parents (which you may well understand) but the problems that
come up when engineers run into when commissioning a new and
complicated piece of equipment, which you clearly don't.
---
Au contraire!
The problems involved in commissioning new and complicated pieces of
equipment are clearly analogous to the problems involved in bringing up
children and turning them into fully functional adult humans but, having
no children of your own, how would you know?
---
And you?
I've had to learn about unfants' problem vicariously from friends and
relatives - I've got eight nieces and nephews, and four grand-nieces
and -nephews, so I've heard quite a lot about the subject.
---
Oh, please...
Even someone as pig-headed as you are must realize that hearing about it
isn't the same as being there.
---
but linguistically competent adults don't usually find this particular
generalisation to be beyond them.
---
Linguistically competent adults don't usually say "generalisation" when
they mean "generalization".
---
Cheater...
Here's the original:
QUOTE
but linguistically competent adults don't usually find this particular
genealisation to be beyond them.
---
Linguistically competent adults don't usually say "genealisation" when
they mean "generalization".
---
END QUOTE
Americans do spell generalisation with a "z" but outside America the
spelling with an "s" is an accepted variation.
---
on two levels.
The first is that, unless you're claiming that the failure was planned,
your statement is outrageously false, and the second is that "Large
Hadron Collider" should be preceded by "the".
If you had enough grasp of English to appreciate the fact that a claim
that "the Large Hadron Colider isn't working right" applied to the
present, rather than than the past, you might be in a position to
quibble about typos.
---
Since the LHC failed to stop "working right" in the past and hasn't, so
far, been made capable of "working right" in the present, your argument
is specious.
It's working fine - at 3.5 TeV - at the moment. The operators plan to
let it run at that level for a while before starting to crank it up to
the design level of 7 TeV.
---
Wise move, but "working fine" at 3.5 TeV isn't quite the same as working
properly at 7 TeV.
---
There's nothing wrong with working at 3.5 TeV.
---
Other than the fact that it was designed to work at 7 TeV and blew up
last time it tried to get there, you're right on the money.
---
At least 49 of the super-conductiong magnets are going to have to
be "retrained" so that they will remain super-conducting when
generating the magnetic fields appropriate to 7 TeV - they were got
there once (ar manufacture), but apparently the wiring has forgotten
its "training" and will have to worked up to its design levels again.
---
Hmmm...
Since having to "retrain" the unruly magnets wasn't part of the initial
scheme, then the machine (although able to limp along at 3.5 TeV) is
still broken.
---
this is going to take a while. and the operators want to get some
physics out of what they have got before making the next step.
---
Uh, yeah, it's still broke, but we can get some use out of it until it's
fixed...
Sounds like spin control to me.
---
It's a big and complicated system which is now doing almost everything
that it was designed to do, and in that sense it is "working right".
---
Sorry, Charlie, but much like an ocean liner designed to get to 30 knots
yet can only get to 15 knots during sea trials, it won't be working
right until it reaches its stated design goals.
---
It hasn't yet got to the design target of 7 TeV, but the route is
clear, and the operators have a perfect right to decide how fast they
will move along it.
---
I'm sure the route was clear last time too...
---
It's your argument that is specious, based as it is on your own
restricted experience with rather less complicated and demanding
projects.
---
Hey, asshole, I'm not the one claiming the LHC is "working fine", am I?
JF
--
Sub Fairies Kissing Up to the Chief Fairy
elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 yea
