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

the beginning of the end, I hope

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - the beginning of the end, I hope

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Tom Gardner
Guest

Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:01 am   



On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>,
Tom Gardner <spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup next
to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some of
our modern housing estates can be directly traced back
to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads around
here, some as fast as motorways for some journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches older
than 500 years, built on even older ruins.
The Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about.
The Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.

But it doesn't.


It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.

John Larkin
Guest

Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:30 am   



On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 19:33:16 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com
wrote:

Quote:
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:45:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 01:01:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>,
Tom Gardner <spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup next
to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some of
our modern housing estates can be directly traced back
to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads around
here, some as fast as motorways for some journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches older
than 500 years, built on even older ruins.
The Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about.
The Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.

But it doesn't.

It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.


http://tinyurl.com/hqglwrs

This hasn't faltered yet. That graph *is* remarkable.

It's a hockey stick! (Guess why?)

Grins,
James Arthur


I don't know. I'm not into sports.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

John Larkin
Guest

Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:30 am   



On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 01:01:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:
On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>,
Tom Gardner <spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup next
to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some of
our modern housing estates can be directly traced back
to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads around
here, some as fast as motorways for some journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches older
than 500 years, built on even older ruins.
The Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about.
The Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.

But it doesn't.

It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.


http://tinyurl.com/hqglwrs

This hasn't faltered yet. That graph *is* remarkable.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics


Guest

Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:30 am   



On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 3:26:59 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 19:33:16 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com
wrote:

On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:45:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 01:01:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>,
Tom Gardner <spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup next
to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some of
our modern housing estates can be directly traced back
to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads around
here, some as fast as motorways for some journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches older
than 500 years, built on even older ruins.
The Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about.
The Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.

But it doesn't.

It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.


http://tinyurl.com/hqglwrs

This hasn't faltered yet. That graph *is* remarkable.

It's a hockey stick! (Guess why?)

Grins,
James Arthur

I don't know. I'm not into sports.


Or science either.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:30 am   



On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 2:33:20 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:45:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 01:01:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>,
Tom Gardner <spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup next
to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some of
our modern housing estates can be directly traced back
to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads around
here, some as fast as motorways for some journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches older
than 500 years, built on even older ruins.
The Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about.
The Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.

But it doesn't.

It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.


http://tinyurl.com/hqglwrs

This hasn't faltered yet. That graph *is* remarkable.

It's a hockey stick! (Guess why?)


One of the ways the economy has happened to grow rapidly over the past couple centuries has been an exponential growth in fossil carbon extraction and combustion.

James Arthur may be silly enough to think that this continue until we run out of fossil carbon to dig up. He too ill-informed - or perhaps too indoctrinated - to couple the exponential rise in the amount of fossil carbon turned into CO2 with the recent rapid increase in the average global temperature, which also has, as you'd expect, the same hockey stick shape.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Spinpath
Guest

Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:30 am   



On 01/06/2017 08:26 PM, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
his hasn't faltered yet. That graph*is* remarkable.

It's a hockey stick! (Guess why?)

Grins,
James Arthur
I don't know. I'm not into sports.


Turbulence is born in the gap where interconnectedness has been excluded.

Tom Gardner
Guest

Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:32 pm   



On 07/01/17 02:45, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 01:01:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>,
Tom Gardner <spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup next
to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some of
our modern housing estates can be directly traced back
to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads around
here, some as fast as motorways for some journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches older
than 500 years, built on even older ruins.
The Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about.
The Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.

But it doesn't.

It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.


http://tinyurl.com/hqglwrs

This hasn't faltered yet. That graph *is* remarkable.


Unfortunately it has, many times, if you look at the
history of individual civilisations.

It is interesting that you are prepared to project
this up-and-right graph into the indefinite future,
but you refuse to project other similarly shaped graphs
into the near future.


Guest

Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:50 pm   



On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 1:49:22 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 2:33:20 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:45:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 01:01:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>,
Tom Gardner <spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup next
to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some of
our modern housing estates can be directly traced back
to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads around
here, some as fast as motorways for some journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches older
than 500 years, built on even older ruins.
The Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about.
The Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.

But it doesn't.

It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.


http://tinyurl.com/hqglwrs

This hasn't faltered yet. That graph *is* remarkable.

It's a hockey stick! (Guess why?)

One of the ways the economy has happened to grow rapidly over the past couple centuries has been an exponential growth in fossil carbon extraction and combustion.


We have a winner!

Cheers,
James Arthur

John Devereux
Guest

Sat Jan 07, 2017 7:28 pm   



Tom Gardner <spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> writes:

Quote:
On 07/01/17 02:45, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 01:01:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>,
Tom Gardner <spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup next
to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some of
our modern housing estates can be directly traced back
to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads around
here, some as fast as motorways for some journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches older
than 500 years, built on even older ruins.
The Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about.
The Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.

But it doesn't.

It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.


http://tinyurl.com/hqglwrs

This hasn't faltered yet. That graph *is* remarkable.

Unfortunately it has, many times, if you look at the
history of individual civilisations.

It is interesting that you are prepared to project
this up-and-right graph into the indefinite future,
but you refuse to project other similarly shaped graphs
into the near future.


:)

Especially since it is an *economic* prediction.


--

John Devereux


Guest

Sat Jan 07, 2017 10:48 pm   



On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 06:50:41 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com
wrote:

Quote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 1:49:22 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 2:33:20 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:45:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 01:01:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>,
Tom Gardner <spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup next
to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some of
our modern housing estates can be directly traced back
to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads around
here, some as fast as motorways for some journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches older
than 500 years, built on even older ruins.
The Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about.
The Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.

But it doesn't.

It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.


http://tinyurl.com/hqglwrs

This hasn't faltered yet. That graph *is* remarkable.

It's a hockey stick! (Guess why?)

One of the ways the economy has happened to grow rapidly over the past couple centuries has been an exponential growth in fossil carbon extraction and combustion.

We have a winner!


We have to put an end to that _right_now_!

John Larkin
Guest

Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:17 pm   



On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 09:32:52 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:
On 07/01/17 02:45, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 01:01:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>,
Tom Gardner <spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup next
to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some of
our modern housing estates can be directly traced back
to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads around
here, some as fast as motorways for some journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches older
than 500 years, built on even older ruins.
The Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about.
The Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.

But it doesn't.

It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.


http://tinyurl.com/hqglwrs

This hasn't faltered yet. That graph *is* remarkable.

Unfortunately it has, many times, if you look at the
history of individual civilisations.

It is interesting that you are prepared to project
this up-and-right graph into the indefinite future,
but you refuse to project other similarly shaped graphs
into the near future.


You are making up what I am "prepared" to do, and what I "refuse" to
do. You are of course wrong about both.

There is a simple electronic circuit in which the voltage increases
exponentially, forever, without any sort of faltering, whatever
"falter" means here.

Besides, the original statement

Economic growth -- being exponential --

would be interesting if true, which it clearly isn't.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

John Larkin
Guest

Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:28 pm   



On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 06:50:41 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com
wrote:

Quote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 1:49:22 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 2:33:20 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:45:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 01:01:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>,
Tom Gardner <spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup next
to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some of
our modern housing estates can be directly traced back
to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads around
here, some as fast as motorways for some journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches older
than 500 years, built on even older ruins.
The Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about.
The Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.

But it doesn't.

It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.


http://tinyurl.com/hqglwrs

This hasn't faltered yet. That graph *is* remarkable.

It's a hockey stick! (Guess why?)

One of the ways the economy has happened to grow rapidly over the past couple centuries has been an exponential growth in fossil carbon extraction and combustion.

We have a winner!

Cheers,
James Arthur


Various idiots have been clucking about "peak oil" since 1885. Known
reserves of oil, gas, and coal have increased almost monotonically
since then, and are now higher than ever and still sloping up.

Long hot showers are a major contributor to electronic design
productivity.

http://www.gereports.com/post/110279383303/a-brief-history-of-peak-oil/


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics


Guest

Sun Jan 08, 2017 3:47 am   



On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 3:28:47 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 06:50:41 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 1:49:22 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 2:33:20 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:45:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 01:01:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>,
Tom Gardner <spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup next
to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some of
our modern housing estates can be directly traced back
to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads around
here, some as fast as motorways for some journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches older
than 500 years, built on even older ruins.
The Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about.
The Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.

But it doesn't.

It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.


http://tinyurl.com/hqglwrs

This hasn't faltered yet. That graph *is* remarkable.

It's a hockey stick! (Guess why?)

One of the ways the economy has happened to grow rapidly over the past couple centuries has been an exponential growth in fossil carbon extraction and combustion.

We have a winner!

Various idiots have been clucking about "peak oil" since 1885. Known
reserves of oil, gas, and coal have increased almost monotonically
since then, and are now higher than ever and still sloping up.


Of course the reserves have been increasing monotonically. Once you've found oil, it doesn't go away - at least not until you've extracted it, sold it and seen it burnt as fuel, which does take time.

"Peak oil" is when production starts falling, and since a lot of the new reserves are hard to extract, that is definitely in sight.

We've burnt about half a trillion tons of carbon since 1750, and if John Larkin had the wit to understand anthropogenic global warming - he doesn't, and prefers to believe the comforting denialist propaganda he gets fed by the Murdoch press - he'd know that we can't afford to burn more than about another quarter of a trillion tons, so the reserves aren't all that interesting.

Quote:
Long hot showers are a major contributor to electronic design
productivity.


How would John Larkin know? He confuses persistent tinkering with electronic design, and congratulates himself on his imagined electronic design skills wherever he gets something to work.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Sun Jan 08, 2017 4:06 am   



On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 3:17:19 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 09:32:52 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 07/01/17 02:45, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 01:01:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>,
Tom Gardner <spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup next
to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some of
our modern housing estates can be directly traced back
to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads around
here, some as fast as motorways for some journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches older
than 500 years, built on even older ruins.
The Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about.
The Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.

But it doesn't.

It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.


http://tinyurl.com/hqglwrs

This hasn't faltered yet. That graph *is* remarkable.

Unfortunately it has, many times, if you look at the
history of individual civilisations.

It is interesting that you are prepared to project
this up-and-right graph into the indefinite future,
but you refuse to project other similarly shaped graphs
into the near future.

You are making up what I am "prepared" to do, and what I "refuse" to
do. You are of course wrong about both.


We know that you are a gullible sucker, prepared to believe anything, who refuses to do the work required to distinguish plausible nonsense from evidence-based facts.

> There is a simple

- but unreal -

Quote:
electronic circuit in which the voltage increases
exponentially, forever, without any sort of faltering, whatever
"falter" means here.


In a real circuit, "falter" would mean electrical breakdown. No insulator can withstand an arbitrarily high voltage.

Quote:
Besides, the original statement

Economic growth -- being exponential --

would be interesting if true, which it clearly isn't.


Any single economic activity will have a sigmoid growth curve - initial rapid quasi-exponential growth that will slow down as the activity runs into its limit which can be anything from the resources available to the number of potential customers.

The claim that economic growth was exponential would have to depend on the idea that an economy can include a potentially unlimited range of potential economic activities, with new ones taking off as the older ones hit saturation.

Perhaps a community getting fabulously wealthy writing apps for one another's mobile phones ...

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

M Philbrook
Guest

Mon Jan 09, 2017 1:30 am   



In article <aa27dadb-d4a2-4414-887e-242ccfeefc8e_at_googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org says...
Quote:

Long hot showers are a major contributor to electronic design
productivity.

How would John Larkin know? He confuses persistent tinkering with electronic design, and congratulates himself on his imagined electronic design skills wherever he gets something to work.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 17:47:48 -0800 (PST)



that must explain your failure then, you stink!


Jamie

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - the beginning of the end, I hope

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