EDAboard.com | EDAboard.eu | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | RTV forum PL | NewsGroups PL

OT: Climate Change, Isaac Asimov and the 1975 TV Guide

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: Climate Change, Isaac Asimov and the 1975 TV Guide

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:57 am   



On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 3:55:21 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/01/17 05:18, rickman wrote:
Even funnier is the idea that an engineer analyzing climate makes fun of a
noted science writer because he was trained as a chemist. Talk about
irony.

Experts? We don't need no steenkin' experts.

There are vast regions of non-experimental "science" where the
overwhelming concensus is usually wrong. It changes semi-periodically,
roughly once per generation, so it might occasionally be right, by
accident.


Name one.

> Asimov's predictions were dire and wrong. Nothing new there.

In 1975 there wasn't a lot of systematised observation on which to base predictions. Computers were still fairly big - the 4004 had just hos the market - and there weren't all that many around. Asimov didn't get the details right, but the dire part would have been spot-on.

Quote:
(And we should just have newly minted grads designing
complex electronic/software systems. Not.)

I pretty much despair of recent EE grads designing anything sensible.


John Larkin doesn't know much about design, so this must be taken with a grain of salt.

Quote:
I've interviewed too many young EEs who can't figure out a simple
voltage divider, much less a transistor or an opamp.


Quite a few people would feel they were being patronised if asked such simple-minded questions, and might give answers that might test the comprehension of the interviewer - and John Larkin's comprehension leaves him happy reading denialist propaganda in the Murdoch press.

> Most skipped the field theory and control theory and s+s courses because they > are hard, and are electives now.

Seems odd.

Quote:
I must have interviewed 50 of them, and found
one (a young woman who graduated from a college in Mexico) who
actually understands electricity; I hired her.


She probably understood how to respond when being interviewed by an egomaniac with delusions of competence. The Mexican social structure throw up even more of that sort of clown than the US.

> That's a separate rant.

And just as irrational as the usual ones.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:03 am   



On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 7:08:14 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:00 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gherold_at_teachspin.com> wrote:

On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:55:21 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/17 05:18, rickman wrote:
Even funnier is the idea that an engineer analyzing climate makes fun of a noted
science writer because he was trained as a chemist. Talk about irony.


Experts? We don't need no steenkin' experts.

There are vast regions of non-experimental "science" where the
overwhelming concensus is usually wrong. It changes semi-periodically,
roughly once per generation, so it might occasionally be right, by
accident.

Oh my..
*** thread shift .. but it relates to food and that is
always permissible (according to my copy of the SED bylaws.)
***
I was reading this article about the evils of sugar, and how (they) think
that nutritionalist's got the obesity question wrong.
It's not about energy inbalance, but a hormonal response to carbs.
(I can't recall where I read it.)

Some decades carbs are good, and some decades they are poison. Ditto
fats, dairy, meat, salt, whatever.


Health advice isn't a science, but an industry.

Quote:
Some "sciences", where there is no danger of being embarassed by
experiment, are necessarily fad-driven. You need to keep coming up
with new stuff if you want to publish.


"Health science" is an invention of the health advice industry. They take advantage of anything that real scientists come up with that they can turn into propaganda, but the propaganda isn't published in peer-reviewed journals but rather in popular glossy magazines fine-tuned to suck in the maximum number of unsophisticated readers.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

John Larkin
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:08 am   



On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:00 -0800 (PST), George Herold
<gherold_at_teachspin.com> wrote:

Quote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:55:21 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/17 05:18, rickman wrote:
Even funnier is the idea that an engineer analyzing climate makes fun of a noted
science writer because he was trained as a chemist. Talk about irony.


Experts? We don't need no steenkin' experts.

There are vast regions of non-experimental "science" where the
overwhelming concensus is usually wrong. It changes semi-periodically,
roughly once per generation, so it might occasionally be right, by
accident.
Oh my..
*** thread shift .. but it relates to food and that is
always permissible (according to my copy of the SED bylaws.)
***
I was reading this article about the evils of sugar, and how (they) think
that nutritionalist's got the obesity question wrong.
It's not about energy inbalance, but a hormonal response to carbs.
(I can't recall where I read it.)

George H.


Some decades carbs are good, and some decades they are poison. Ditto
fats, dairy, meat, salt, whatever.

Some "sciences", where there is no danger of being embarassed by
experiment, are necessarily fad-driven. You need to keep coming up
with new stuff if you want to publish.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com


Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:42 am   



On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 00:58:06 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 3:55:21 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/01/17 05:18, rickman wrote:
Even funnier is the idea that an engineer analyzing climate makes fun of a
noted science writer because he was trained as a chemist. Talk about
irony.

Experts? We don't need no steenkin' experts.

There are vast regions of non-experimental "science" where the
overwhelming concensus is usually wrong. It changes semi-periodically,
roughly once per generation, so it might occasionally be right, by
accident.

Name one.

Asimov's predictions were dire and wrong. Nothing new there.

In 1975 there wasn't a lot of systematised observation on which to base predictions. Computers were still fairly big - the 4004 had just hos the market - and there weren't all that many around. Asimov didn't get the details right, but the dire part would have been spot-on.

(And we should just have newly minted grads designing
complex electronic/software systems. Not.)

I pretty much despair of recent EE grads designing anything sensible.

John Larkin doesn't know much about design, so this must be taken with a grain of salt.

I've interviewed too many young EEs who can't figure out a simple
voltage divider, much less a transistor or an opamp.

Quite a few people would feel they were being patronised if asked such simple-minded questions, and might give answers that might test the comprehension of the interviewer - and John Larkin's comprehension leaves him happy reading denialist propaganda in the Murdoch press.

Most skipped the field theory and control theory and s+s courses because they > are hard, and are electives now.

Seems odd.

I must have interviewed 50 of them, and found
one (a young woman who graduated from a college in Mexico) who
actually understands electricity; I hired her.

She probably understood how to respond when being interviewed by an egomaniac with delusions of competence. The Mexican social structure throw up even more of that sort of clown than the US.

That's a separate rant.

And just as irrational as the usual ones.


Once again Slowman's determined to not understand something quite simple, and very common in EE.


NT


Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:42 am   



On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 2:17:02 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 12:54:39 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gherold_at_teachspin.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:00 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gherold_at_teachspin.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:55:21 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/01/17 05:18, rickman wrote:

Even funnier is the idea that an engineer analyzing climate makes fun of a noted
science writer because he was trained as a chemist. Talk about irony.

Experts? We don't need no steenkin' experts.

There are vast regions of non-experimental "science" where the
overwhelming concensus is usually wrong. It changes semi-periodically,
roughly once per generation, so it might occasionally be right, by
accident.

Oh my..
*** thread shift .. but it relates to food and that is
always permissible (according to my copy of the SED bylaws.)
***
I was reading this article about the evils of sugar, and how (they) think
that nutritionalist's got the obesity question wrong.
It's not about energy inbalance, but a hormonal response to carbs.
(I can't recall where I read it.)

Some decades carbs are good, and some decades they are poison. Ditto
fats, dairy, meat, salt, whatever.
I guess I have a basic "faith" that science will eventually get it right...
or at least righter. But I can understand your mistrust.

The article talked about how there was a paradigm shift in the 40's
when the center of science left Germany and came here. The energy balance
argument makes sense.. energy in - out = stored. But we've known
for a while that carbs cause a hormonal response too... more insulin,
which leads to fat storage.

Some "sciences", where there is no danger of being embarassed by
experiment, are necessarily fad-driven. You need to keep coming up
with new stuff if you want to publish.
I see fads in all the sciences.
(well I pay the most attention to solid state physics.)

Physics is the best of the sciences. Nonsense doesn't last long, and
its authors get scourged hard.


String theory has yet to be scourged out of existence

John Larkin doesn't know much about science, and thinks that physics is the only experimental science. Biology and chemistry do just as well.

Astronomy and geology are largely observational, and while geology took a while to accept continental drift, the fact that we can now measure it in real time means that it is now well accepted.

Quote:
Electronic design isn't a science, but it gets experimentally tested
pretty well too.


Like every other form of performance art. Of course John Larkin can't tell the difference between electronic design and tinkering, but a lot of artists can't document the creative process beyond exhibiting - or in John's case - selling examples of the work in progress.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:45 am   



On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 12:42:20 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 00:58:06 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 3:55:21 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/01/17 05:18, rickman wrote:
Even funnier is the idea that an engineer analyzing climate makes fun of a
noted science writer because he was trained as a chemist. Talk about
irony.

Experts? We don't need no steenkin' experts.

There are vast regions of non-experimental "science" where the
overwhelming concensus is usually wrong. It changes semi-periodically,
roughly once per generation, so it might occasionally be right, by
accident.

Name one.

Asimov's predictions were dire and wrong. Nothing new there.

In 1975 there wasn't a lot of systematised observation on which to base predictions. Computers were still fairly big - the 4004 had just hos the market - and there weren't all that many around. Asimov didn't get the details right, but the dire part would have been spot-on.

(And we should just have newly minted grads designing
complex electronic/software systems. Not.)

I pretty much despair of recent EE grads designing anything sensible.

John Larkin doesn't know much about design, so this must be taken with a grain of salt.

I've interviewed too many young EEs who can't figure out a simple
voltage divider, much less a transistor or an opamp.

Quite a few people would feel they were being patronised if asked such simple-minded questions, and might give answers that might test the comprehension of the interviewer - and John Larkin's comprehension leaves him happy reading denialist propaganda in the Murdoch press.

Most skipped the field theory and control theory and s+s courses because they > are hard, and are electives now.

Seems odd.

I must have interviewed 50 of them, and found
one (a young woman who graduated from a college in Mexico) who
actually understands electricity; I hired her.

She probably understood how to respond when being interviewed by an egomaniac with delusions of competence. The Mexican social structure throw up even more of that sort of clown than the US.

That's a separate rant.

And just as irrational as the usual ones.

Once again Sloman's determined to not understand something quite simple, and very common in EE.


On the contrary, egomaniacs with delusions of competence are all too common in electronic engineering - NT does seem to be prime example - and I've worked with enough of them to have an adequate working understand of how to cope with them. Sending them up can be a useful tool.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

John Larkin
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:30 am   



On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 12:54:39 -0800 (PST), George Herold
<gherold_at_teachspin.com> wrote:

Quote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:00 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gherold_at_teachspin.com> wrote:

On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:55:21 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/17 05:18, rickman wrote:
Even funnier is the idea that an engineer analyzing climate makes fun of a noted
science writer because he was trained as a chemist. Talk about irony.


Experts? We don't need no steenkin' experts.

There are vast regions of non-experimental "science" where the
overwhelming concensus is usually wrong. It changes semi-periodically,
roughly once per generation, so it might occasionally be right, by
accident.
Oh my..
*** thread shift .. but it relates to food and that is
always permissible (according to my copy of the SED bylaws.)
***
I was reading this article about the evils of sugar, and how (they) think
that nutritionalist's got the obesity question wrong.
It's not about energy inbalance, but a hormonal response to carbs.
(I can't recall where I read it.)

George H.

Some decades carbs are good, and some decades they are poison. Ditto
fats, dairy, meat, salt, whatever.
I guess I have a basic "faith" that science will eventually get it right..
or at least righter. But I can understand your mistrust.

The article talked about how there was a paradigm shift in the 40's
when the center of science left Germany and came here. The energy balance
argument makes sense.. energy in - out = stored. But we've known
for a while that carbs cause a hormonal response too... more insulin,
which leads to fat storage.


Some "sciences", where there is no danger of being embarassed by
experiment, are necessarily fad-driven. You need to keep coming up
with new stuff if you want to publish.
I see fads in all the sciences.
(well I pay the most attention to solid state physics.)


Physics is the best of the sciences. Nonsense doesn't last long, and
its authors get scourged hard.

Electronic design isn't a science, but it gets experimentally tested
pretty well too.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

John Larkin
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:30 am   



On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 13:40:21 -0800 (PST), George Herold
<gherold_at_teachspin.com> wrote:

Quote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 4:15:47 PM UTC-5, pcdh...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you misunderstood Jasen's point. Do we have a device
that gets hotter at the hot side when we heat the cool side?
(Without a reversal of the gradient across the device, that is.)

You can't make heat flow spontaneously from cold to hot, but in almost any situation involving steady-state heat flow, warming up the cold side does cause the hot side to warm too. (Heat sinks and transistor junctions come to mind.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

OK Now I'm interpreting someone's interpretation.. bad... but I thought Jason meant
a "thermal" capacitance not connected to any heat bath. So no thermal connections
(through a thermal resistance) to "zero" temperature. A hunk of something floating
in a heat capacity chamber is the as close as I can come.
(By a heat capacity chamber I mean a vacuum space use to measure heat capacity.)

George H.


We are lucky in electronics, to have cheap parts that are linear,
integrating, and differentiating. And over an astounding range of time
constants, picoseconds to megaseconds.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics


Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:47 pm   



On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 03:45:53 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 12:42:20 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 00:58:06 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

Once again Sloman's determined to not understand something quite simple, and very common in EE.

On the contrary, egomaniacs with delusions of competence are all too common in electronic engineering - NT does seem to be prime example - and I've worked with enough of them to have an adequate working understand of how to cope with them. Sending them up can be a useful tool.


how ironic. And time wasting.


Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:40 pm   



On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 9:47:39 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 03:45:53 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 12:42:20 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 00:58:06 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

Once again Sloman's determined to not understand something quite simple, and very common in EE.

On the contrary, egomaniacs with delusions of competence are all too common in electronic engineering - NT does seem to be prime example - and I've worked with enough of them to have an adequate working understand of how to cope with them. Sending them up can be a useful tool.

how ironic. And time wasting.


NT wants to see irony. More wishful thinking.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

George Herold
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:07 pm   



On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 6:57:39 AM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
Quote:
On 1/9/2017 3:54 PM, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:00 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gherold_at_teachspin.com> wrote:

On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:55:21 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/17 05:18, rickman wrote:
Even funnier is the idea that an engineer analyzing climate makes fun of a noted
science writer because he was trained as a chemist. Talk about irony.


Experts? We don't need no steenkin' experts.

There are vast regions of non-experimental "science" where the
overwhelming concensus is usually wrong. It changes semi-periodically,
roughly once per generation, so it might occasionally be right, by
accident.
Oh my..
*** thread shift .. but it relates to food and that is
always permissible (according to my copy of the SED bylaws.)
***
I was reading this article about the evils of sugar, and how (they) think
that nutritionalist's got the obesity question wrong.
It's not about energy inbalance, but a hormonal response to carbs.
(I can't recall where I read it.)

George H.

Some decades carbs are good, and some decades they are poison. Ditto
fats, dairy, meat, salt, whatever.
I guess I have a basic "faith" that science will eventually get it right..
or at least righter. But I can understand your mistrust.

The article talked about how there was a paradigm shift in the 40's
when the center of science left Germany and came here. The energy balance
argument makes sense.. energy in - out = stored. But we've known
for a while that carbs cause a hormonal response too... more insulin,
which leads to fat storage.

It's not that simple. Energy in is measured in a way that has little
bearing on the energy available as food. The energy out typically is
only counted in terms of exercise. Not all food is digested, is that
factored in? I've yet to see anyone take that into account.


I'm not a nutritionist, so I won't argue.
Here's the article.
https://aeon.co/essays/sugar-is-a-toxic-agent-that-creates-conditions-for-disease

George H.
Quote:

--

Rick C


rickman
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:35 pm   



On 1/9/2017 2:43 PM, George Herold wrote:
Quote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:55:21 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/17 05:18, rickman wrote:
Even funnier is the idea that an engineer analyzing climate makes fun of a noted
science writer because he was trained as a chemist. Talk about irony.


Experts? We don't need no steenkin' experts.

There are vast regions of non-experimental "science" where the
overwhelming concensus is usually wrong. It changes semi-periodically,
roughly once per generation, so it might occasionally be right, by
accident.
Oh my..
*** thread shift .. but it relates to food and that is
always permissible (according to my copy of the SED bylaws.)
***
I was reading this article about the evils of sugar, and how (they) think
that nutritionalist's got the obesity question wrong.
It's not about energy inbalance, but a hormonal response to carbs.
(I can't recall where I read it.)


Funny you say that. I can work all week to lose weight but if I have
one sugary thing on one day it pretty much wipes out my gain for the
week out of all proportion to the caloric content. If I want to lose
weight I just plain have to give up sweets... or exercise to the point I
can't not lose weight. One particular summer I was kayaking some 30-50
miles a week and would return home to dinner and still being hungry
would polish off better part of a carton of ice cream. The only reason
I didn't lose weight was because of the muscle gain. But not many
people have time to spend 3-4 hours a day exercising, not to mention the
inclination.

--

Rick C

rickman
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:55 pm   



On 1/9/2017 3:08 PM, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:00 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gherold_at_teachspin.com> wrote:

On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:55:21 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/17 05:18, rickman wrote:
Even funnier is the idea that an engineer analyzing climate makes fun of a noted
science writer because he was trained as a chemist. Talk about irony.


Experts? We don't need no steenkin' experts.

There are vast regions of non-experimental "science" where the
overwhelming concensus is usually wrong. It changes semi-periodically,
roughly once per generation, so it might occasionally be right, by
accident.
Oh my..
*** thread shift .. but it relates to food and that is
always permissible (according to my copy of the SED bylaws.)
***
I was reading this article about the evils of sugar, and how (they) think
that nutritionalist's got the obesity question wrong.
It's not about energy inbalance, but a hormonal response to carbs.
(I can't recall where I read it.)

George H.

Some decades carbs are good, and some decades they are poison. Ditto
fats, dairy, meat, salt, whatever.

Some "sciences", where there is no danger of being embarassed by
experiment, are necessarily fad-driven. You need to keep coming up
with new stuff if you want to publish.


Once again JL has to denigrate science because of what some people do in
the name of science. Science continues on in the same manner it has for
hundreds of years. Fads continue on in the same manner they have for
likely thousands of years. Most can tell the difference between the two.

--

Rick C

rickman
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:57 pm   



On 1/9/2017 3:54 PM, George Herold wrote:
Quote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:00 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gherold_at_teachspin.com> wrote:

On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:55:21 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/17 05:18, rickman wrote:
Even funnier is the idea that an engineer analyzing climate makes fun of a noted
science writer because he was trained as a chemist. Talk about irony.


Experts? We don't need no steenkin' experts.

There are vast regions of non-experimental "science" where the
overwhelming concensus is usually wrong. It changes semi-periodically,
roughly once per generation, so it might occasionally be right, by
accident.
Oh my..
*** thread shift .. but it relates to food and that is
always permissible (according to my copy of the SED bylaws.)
***
I was reading this article about the evils of sugar, and how (they) think
that nutritionalist's got the obesity question wrong.
It's not about energy inbalance, but a hormonal response to carbs.
(I can't recall where I read it.)

George H.

Some decades carbs are good, and some decades they are poison. Ditto
fats, dairy, meat, salt, whatever.
I guess I have a basic "faith" that science will eventually get it right..
or at least righter. But I can understand your mistrust.

The article talked about how there was a paradigm shift in the 40's
when the center of science left Germany and came here. The energy balance
argument makes sense.. energy in - out = stored. But we've known
for a while that carbs cause a hormonal response too... more insulin,
which leads to fat storage.


It's not that simple. Energy in is measured in a way that has little
bearing on the energy available as food. The energy out typically is
only counted in terms of exercise. Not all food is digested, is that
factored in? I've yet to see anyone take that into account.

--

Rick C

rickman
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:59 pm   



On 1/9/2017 10:16 PM, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 12:54:39 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gherold_at_teachspin.com> wrote:

On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:00 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gherold_at_teachspin.com> wrote:

On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:55:21 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/17 05:18, rickman wrote:
Even funnier is the idea that an engineer analyzing climate makes fun of a noted
science writer because he was trained as a chemist. Talk about irony.


Experts? We don't need no steenkin' experts.

There are vast regions of non-experimental "science" where the
overwhelming concensus is usually wrong. It changes semi-periodically,
roughly once per generation, so it might occasionally be right, by
accident.
Oh my..
*** thread shift .. but it relates to food and that is
always permissible (according to my copy of the SED bylaws.)
***
I was reading this article about the evils of sugar, and how (they) think
that nutritionalist's got the obesity question wrong.
It's not about energy inbalance, but a hormonal response to carbs.
(I can't recall where I read it.)

George H.

Some decades carbs are good, and some decades they are poison. Ditto
fats, dairy, meat, salt, whatever.
I guess I have a basic "faith" that science will eventually get it right..
or at least righter. But I can understand your mistrust.

The article talked about how there was a paradigm shift in the 40's
when the center of science left Germany and came here. The energy balance
argument makes sense.. energy in - out = stored. But we've known
for a while that carbs cause a hormonal response too... more insulin,
which leads to fat storage.


Some "sciences", where there is no danger of being embarassed by
experiment, are necessarily fad-driven. You need to keep coming up
with new stuff if you want to publish.
I see fads in all the sciences.
(well I pay the most attention to solid state physics.)

Physics is the best of the sciences. Nonsense doesn't last long, and
its authors get scourged hard.


There are still people experimenting in LENR. There is at least one
fellow selling equipment that produces heat this way.


Quote:
Electronic design isn't a science, but it gets experimentally tested
pretty well too.


I seem to recall a train braking system being designed by fuzzy logic.
That was around for decades.

--

Rick C

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: Climate Change, Isaac Asimov and the 1975 TV Guide

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic versionBulgarian versionCatalan versionCzech versionDanish versionGerman versionGreek versionEnglish versionSpanish versionFinnish versionFrench versionHindi versionCroatian versionIndonesian versionItalian versionHebrew versionJapanese versionKorean versionLithuanian versionLatvian versionDutch versionNorwegian versionPolish versionPortuguese versionRomanian versionRussian versionSlovak versionSlovenian versionSerbian versionSwedish versionTagalog versionUkrainian versionVietnamese versionChinese version
RTV map EDAboard.com map News map EDAboard.eu map EDAboard.de map EDAboard.co.uk map