Driver to drive?

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:11:50 -0600, Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org>
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:03:52 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:02:58 -0600, Marvin the Martian
marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:07:01 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 21:42, hda <agent...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:44:11 -0500, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com
wrote:









"Marvin the Martian"  wrote in message
news:4KWdnR8Cz8laJ0rNnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.

Really asshole?
[snip]
Some assholes said
[snip]
That's why you're an asshole!
]snip]
someone you asshole lie and
[snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that
there
[snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have
an intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice
obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for
anyone with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's long suit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to know.

All you have to do is state the mean global temperature of the earth as
a function of carbon dioxide, and state the concentration of carbon
dioxide as a function of human emissions.

Then show how these equations make useful predictions that work, and are
consistent with the past. This is called in my country "The scientific
method".

It is not. The scientific method isn't about predictions and simulation,
it's about hypothesis and experiment.

A prediction is a hypothesis. I don't know where you get this
"simulation" stuff unless you're talking about the alarmist who use
simulations to "prove" their hypothesis. I never mentioned simulation.

Historically, practically any
field of research that was not verified by experiment was mostly bogus.

Nobody, smart or dumb, can predict the evolution of a complex chaotic
system, even if they understand all the physics and all the states and
all the inputs, which in this case nobody does.

That's nice. Maybe I even agree with that.

However, Svensmark has a climate theory that is consistent with the last
500 million years and has predicted the last 16 years, so climate isn't
one of those unknowable complex chaotic systems.

If enough people manufacture enough theories, one or two will look pretty good.
I could do a polynomial regression on climate history, publish an equation, and
look like a genius.

And besides, you can do nothing about it. So why don't you design some
electronics... which can be verified by experiment.

Ah! I see the problem. Apparently MR. "IEEE" Slowman included
sci.electronics.design in the newsgroups. I've trimmed that group out out
of the follow ups.

He pollutes s.e.d. with his climate nonsense and moronic, droning insults. He
claims he used to design electronics some decades ago. He needs a day job.
Aren't there any Wal-Marts in Australia? Imagine Sloman as a greeter!


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

 

[tm]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:f34hd8t3sj03p5uoj4th4mnvcbij17ohh1@4ax.com...

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:11:50 -0600, Marvin the Martian
marvin@ontomars.org
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:03:52 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:02:58 -0600, Marvin the Martian
marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:07:01 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 21:42, hda <agent...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:44:11 -0500, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com
wrote:









"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
news:4KWdnR8Cz8laJ0rNnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.

Really asshole?
[snip]
Some assholes said
[snip]
That's why you're an asshole!
]snip]
someone you asshole lie and
[snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that
there
[snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have
an intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice
obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for
anyone with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's long suit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to know.

All you have to do is state the mean global temperature of the earth as
a function of carbon dioxide, and state the concentration of carbon
dioxide as a function of human emissions.

Then show how these equations make useful predictions that work, and are
consistent with the past. This is called in my country "The scientific
method".

It is not. The scientific method isn't about predictions and simulation,
it's about hypothesis and experiment.

A prediction is a hypothesis. I don't know where you get this
"simulation" stuff unless you're talking about the alarmist who use
simulations to "prove" their hypothesis. I never mentioned simulation.

Historically, practically any
field of research that was not verified by experiment was mostly bogus.

Nobody, smart or dumb, can predict the evolution of a complex chaotic
system, even if they understand all the physics and all the states and
all the inputs, which in this case nobody does.

That's nice. Maybe I even agree with that.

However, Svensmark has a climate theory that is consistent with the last
500 million years and has predicted the last 16 years, so climate isn't
one of those unknowable complex chaotic systems.

If enough people manufacture enough theories, one or two will look pretty
good.
I could do a polynomial regression on climate history, publish an
equation, and
look like a genius.




And besides, you can do nothing about it. So why don't you design some
electronics... which can be verified by experiment.

Ah! I see the problem. Apparently MR. "IEEE" Slowman included
sci.electronics.design in the newsgroups. I've trimmed that group out out
of the follow ups.

He pollutes s.e.d. with his climate nonsense and moronic, droning insults.
He
claims he used to design electronics some decades ago. He needs a day job.
Aren't there any Wal-Marts in Australia? Imagine Sloman as a greeter!


--

You mean like the "People of Wal-Mart"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghrDIQ-K8mg

 

[Unum]

On 12/24/2012 9:54 AM, Wally W. wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:27:35 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 17:25, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
On 12/23/2012 11:25 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:19:25 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

snip

Its all about personal attacks at this point.

Calling someone a "denier" isn't a personal attack?

That's for sure. Its merely an accurate description.

Marvin's not short of ideas. They are incomplete and incorrect, but
there's no shortage.

Lets see... you're defending a hypothesis that you are TOTALLY ignorant
of, and you cannot state. Most of your rebuttals are vapid and
condescending. You do know that the Latin root of professor means to
profess, that you can STATE your position right? Instead, you're coming
off as an ignorant condescending asshole, and you're calling ME an
"ignoramus" for asking you what the hell is the hypothesis that you're
defending? Then you pretty much admit that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT it is, and
that MAYBE the IPCC has it? Can't defend you thesis, huh?

Does it seem like Marvin has a little anger management problem?

And a small "lack of precision" problem. If I'm defending a hypothesis
that I'm totally ignorant of, how can I know what I'm defending?

That seems to be the point.

Spewing words to further a political agenda differs from defending a
hypothesis.

I don't recall him mentioning a 'political agenda'. Can you quote
it Wally?

He then wants me to define it - which is a neat trick if I don't what
it is - while ignoring the fact that I've already done it in this
thread.

Then it should be easy for you to copy and paste it.

Lol now Wally wants him to paste what he already wrote back
into the thread. Look it up.

He's a waste of space, and reacting to him is a waste of bandwidth.
The high incidence of stupid mistakes in his posts does make it
tempting, but he's posted enough to absolve us from any obligation to
point up any more.

On the contrary, he has asked good questions which have not been
answered, and he has debunked claims by the warmophobes who have not
better comeback than to repeat the same claim because their
programming compels it.

Marvin's garbage gets regularly destroyed on alt.global-warming
and your crap does too Wally. Spell out for me what Marvin has
'debunked' here and what that 'debunking' consisted of. I'm still
waiting for him to "Explain to us exactly why the absorption bands
and the various radiation flows are not significant".

 

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:33:31 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:11:50 -0600, Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:03:52 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:02:58 -0600, Marvin the Martian
marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:07:01 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 21:42, hda <agent...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:44:11 -0500, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com
wrote:









"Marvin the Martian"  wrote in message
news:4KWdnR8Cz8laJ0rNnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.

Really asshole?
[snip]
Some assholes said
[snip]
That's why you're an asshole!
]snip]
someone you asshole lie and
[snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that
there
[snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have
an intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice
obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for
anyone with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's long suit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to know.

All you have to do is state the mean global temperature of the earth as
a function of carbon dioxide, and state the concentration of carbon
dioxide as a function of human emissions.

Then show how these equations make useful predictions that work, and are
consistent with the past. This is called in my country "The scientific
method".

It is not. The scientific method isn't about predictions and simulation,
it's about hypothesis and experiment.

A prediction is a hypothesis. I don't know where you get this
"simulation" stuff unless you're talking about the alarmist who use
simulations to "prove" their hypothesis. I never mentioned simulation.

Simulation == fact is all Slowman talks about.

Historically, practically any
field of research that was not verified by experiment was mostly bogus.

Nobody, smart or dumb, can predict the evolution of a complex chaotic
system, even if they understand all the physics and all the states and
all the inputs, which in this case nobody does.

That's nice. Maybe I even agree with that.

However, Svensmark has a climate theory that is consistent with the last
500 million years and has predicted the last 16 years, so climate isn't
one of those unknowable complex chaotic systems.

If enough people manufacture enough theories, one or two will look pretty good.
I could do a polynomial regression on climate history, publish an equation, and
look like a genius.

Hmm. Isn't that exactly what the AGW proponents have done? Good
enough for Slowman.

And besides, you can do nothing about it. So why don't you design some
electronics... which can be verified by experiment.

Ah! I see the problem. Apparently MR. "IEEE" Slowman included
sci.electronics.design in the newsgroups. I've trimmed that group out out
of the follow ups.

Why? Several here are following along. You're giving Slowman a good
spanking.

He pollutes s.e.d. with his climate nonsense and moronic, droning insults. He
claims he used to design electronics some decades ago. He needs a day job.
Aren't there any Wal-Marts in Australia? Imagine Sloman as a greeter!

No way! Walmart greeters have to be helpful and nice to the
customers.

 

[Wally W.]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:57:11 -0600, Unum wrote:

On 12/24/2012 9:54 AM, Wally W. wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:27:35 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 17:25, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
On 12/23/2012 11:25 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:19:25 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

snip

Its all about personal attacks at this point.

Calling someone a "denier" isn't a personal attack?

Linking the dismisal of your religion with the denial of the Holocaust
is character assassination. How is that not personal?

That's for sure. Its merely an accurate description.

Marvin's not short of ideas. They are incomplete and incorrect, but
there's no shortage.

Lets see... you're defending a hypothesis that you are TOTALLY ignorant
of, and you cannot state. Most of your rebuttals are vapid and
condescending. You do know that the Latin root of professor means to
profess, that you can STATE your position right? Instead, you're coming
off as an ignorant condescending asshole, and you're calling ME an
"ignoramus" for asking you what the hell is the hypothesis that you're
defending? Then you pretty much admit that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT it is, and
that MAYBE the IPCC has it? Can't defend you thesis, huh?

Does it seem like Marvin has a little anger management problem?

And a small "lack of precision" problem. If I'm defending a hypothesis
that I'm totally ignorant of, how can I know what I'm defending?

That seems to be the point.

Spewing words to further a political agenda differs from defending a
hypothesis.

I don't recall him mentioning a 'political agenda'.

Of course he didn't mention it.

But that is how the AGW scam persists.

Can you quote it Wally?

Have the weasels written it down?

They tipped their hand here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones#Inscriptions
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with
nature.

He then wants me to define it - which is a neat trick if I don't what
it is - while ignoring the fact that I've already done it in this
thread.

Then it should be easy for you to copy and paste it.

Lol now Wally wants him to paste what he already wrote back
into the thread. Look it up.

So you are also unable to demonstrate that he had "already done it."

He's a waste of space, and reacting to him is a waste of bandwidth.
The high incidence of stupid mistakes in his posts does make it
tempting, but he's posted enough to absolve us from any obligation to
point up any more.

On the contrary, he has asked good questions which have not been
answered, and he has debunked claims by the warmophobes who have not
better comeback than to repeat the same claim because their
programming compels it.

Marvin's garbage gets regularly destroyed on alt.global-warming
and your crap does too Wally. Spell out for me what Marvin has
'debunked' here and what that 'debunking' consisted of.

I don't accept the job of spoon-feeding you.

Using your approach: Look it up.

The burden of proof is on the AGW alarmists. If you think there is an
error in Marvin's efforts to debunk your religion, point it out.

I'm still
waiting for him to "Explain to us exactly why the absorption bands
and the various radiation flows are not significant".

First, your quotes seem to be misplaced. As written, it appears that
"explain to us" is part of your request, not his statement.

Since your ability to quote is in question, a cite is needed pursue
this issue.

 

[Unum]

On 12/24/2012 4:58 PM, Wally W. wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:57:11 -0600, Unum wrote:

On 12/24/2012 9:54 AM, Wally W. wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:27:35 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 17:25, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
On 12/23/2012 11:25 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:19:25 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

snip

Its all about personal attacks at this point.

Calling someone a "denier" isn't a personal attack?

Linking the dismisal of your religion with the denial of the Holocaust
is character assassination. How is that not personal?

Lol, suddenly Wally develops a thin skin. There are many forms of
denial aren't there. We didn't land on the moon, the earth isn't
a sphere, there's no such thing as evolution, guns don't kill,
there was no Holocaust, there's no global warming, etc. If you
are a batshit crazy little fruitcake and somebody points it out,
you needn't be offended. Its a large community.

That's for sure. Its merely an accurate description.

Marvin's not short of ideas. They are incomplete and incorrect, but
there's no shortage.

Lets see... you're defending a hypothesis that you are TOTALLY ignorant
of, and you cannot state. Most of your rebuttals are vapid and
condescending. You do know that the Latin root of professor means to
profess, that you can STATE your position right? Instead, you're coming
off as an ignorant condescending asshole, and you're calling ME an
"ignoramus" for asking you what the hell is the hypothesis that you're
defending? Then you pretty much admit that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT it is, and
that MAYBE the IPCC has it? Can't defend you thesis, huh?

Does it seem like Marvin has a little anger management problem?

And a small "lack of precision" problem. If I'm defending a hypothesis
that I'm totally ignorant of, how can I know what I'm defending?

That seems to be the point.

Spewing words to further a political agenda differs from defending a
hypothesis.

I don't recall him mentioning a 'political agenda'.

Of course he didn't mention it.

But that is how the AGW scam persists.

Guhaw! Of course he didn't mention it, Wally 'just knows' things. The
voices whisper to him.

Can you quote it Wally?

Have the weasels written it down?

They tipped their hand here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones#Inscriptions
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with
nature.

The political agenda comes from the Georgia Guidestones. Lol, I
learn something new on the internet every day! What kind of tinfoil
do you use for your hat, the thin crinkly stuff or the industrial
grade? Might want to consider the heavy duty.

He then wants me to define it - which is a neat trick if I don't what
it is - while ignoring the fact that I've already done it in this
thread.

Then it should be easy for you to copy and paste it.

Lol now Wally wants him to paste what he already wrote back
into the thread. Look it up.

So you are also unable to demonstrate that he had "already done it."

I'm demonstrating that you aren't smart enough to go look for yourself
at everything that has appeared in the thread.

He's a waste of space, and reacting to him is a waste of bandwidth.
The high incidence of stupid mistakes in his posts does make it
tempting, but he's posted enough to absolve us from any obligation to
point up any more.

On the contrary, he has asked good questions which have not been
answered, and he has debunked claims by the warmophobes who have not
better comeback than to repeat the same claim because their
programming compels it.

Marvin's garbage gets regularly destroyed on alt.global-warming
and your crap does too Wally. Spell out for me what Marvin has
'debunked' here and what that 'debunking' consisted of.

I don't accept the job of spoon-feeding you.

So you've got absolutely nothing. You can't come up with
a single thing.

Using your approach: Look it up.

The burden of proof is on the AGW alarmists. If you think there is an
error in Marvin's efforts to debunk your religion, point it out.

Already pointed out that Marvin lied about the 'no warming in
16 years', what else are you looking for specifically? His pet
little cosmic ray theory? There are at least a half-dozen papers
blowing that out of the water. The CO2 came from dissolving coral?
Which crackpot statement do you want to defend?

I'm still
waiting for him to "Explain to us exactly why the absorption bands
and the various radiation flows are not significant".

First, your quotes seem to be misplaced. As written, it appears that
"explain to us" is part of your request, not his statement.

Since your ability to quote is in question, a cite is needed pursue
this issue.

That's exactly right. Marvin disputes the relevance of GHG's
to global climate, stating "you were bringing up CO2 absorption
bands that were in between the sun's black body curve, and the
earths, and trying to argue they were significant". Not that
the statement makes any sense at all.

 

[Wally W.]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 18:10:38 -0600, Unum wrote:

On 12/24/2012 4:58 PM, Wally W. wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:57:11 -0600, Unum wrote:

On 12/24/2012 9:54 AM, Wally W. wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:27:35 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 17:25, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
On 12/23/2012 11:25 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:19:25 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

snip

Its all about personal attacks at this point.

Calling someone a "denier" isn't a personal attack?

Linking the dismisal of your religion with the denial of the Holocaust
is character assassination. How is that not personal?

Lol, suddenly Wally develops a thin skin. There are many forms of
denial aren't there. We didn't land on the moon, the earth isn't
a sphere, there's no such thing as evolution, guns don't kill,
there was no Holocaust, there's no global warming, etc. If you
are a batshit crazy little fruitcake and somebody points it out,
you needn't be offended. Its a large community.

That's for sure. Its merely an accurate description.

You were talking about accurate descriptions.

I gave you an accurate description and now *I* have a thin skin.

Snort.

Marvin's not short of ideas. They are incomplete and incorrect, but
there's no shortage.

Lets see... you're defending a hypothesis that you are TOTALLY ignorant
of, and you cannot state. Most of your rebuttals are vapid and
condescending. You do know that the Latin root of professor means to
profess, that you can STATE your position right? Instead, you're coming
off as an ignorant condescending asshole, and you're calling ME an
"ignoramus" for asking you what the hell is the hypothesis that you're
defending? Then you pretty much admit that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT it is, and
that MAYBE the IPCC has it? Can't defend you thesis, huh?

Does it seem like Marvin has a little anger management problem?

And a small "lack of precision" problem. If I'm defending a hypothesis
that I'm totally ignorant of, how can I know what I'm defending?

That seems to be the point.

Spewing words to further a political agenda differs from defending a
hypothesis.

I don't recall him mentioning a 'political agenda'.

Of course he didn't mention it.

But that is how the AGW scam persists.

Guhaw! Of course he didn't mention it, Wally 'just knows' things. The
voices whisper to him.

When does a scammer lead with the declaration that they are trying to
perpetrate a scam?

Why do you think the AGW scam is different?

Can you quote it Wally?

Have the weasels written it down?

They tipped their hand here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones#Inscriptions
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with
nature.

The political agenda comes from the Georgia Guidestones. Lol, I
learn something new on the internet every day! What kind of tinfoil
do you use for your hat, the thin crinkly stuff or the industrial
grade? Might want to consider the heavy duty.

So, no: The weasels haven't written it down.

He then wants me to define it - which is a neat trick if I don't what
it is - while ignoring the fact that I've already done it in this
thread.

Then it should be easy for you to copy and paste it.

Lol now Wally wants him to paste what he already wrote back
into the thread. Look it up.

So you are also unable to demonstrate that he had "already done it."

I'm demonstrating that you aren't smart enough to go look for yourself
at everything that has appeared in the thread.

And yet, you haven't demonstrated that what you claim is in the thread
actually exists.

He's a waste of space, and reacting to him is a waste of bandwidth.
The high incidence of stupid mistakes in his posts does make it
tempting, but he's posted enough to absolve us from any obligation to
point up any more.

On the contrary, he has asked good questions which have not been
answered, and he has debunked claims by the warmophobes who have not
better comeback than to repeat the same claim because their
programming compels it.

Marvin's garbage gets regularly destroyed on alt.global-warming
and your crap does too Wally. Spell out for me what Marvin has
'debunked' here and what that 'debunking' consisted of.

I don't accept the job of spoon-feeding you.

So you've got absolutely nothing. You can't come up with
a single thing.

In the past, I have not found it worth the effort to expend much
effort in detailing things for you.

Your "Spell out for me" demand is over the top.

Request denied.

Using your approach: Look it up.

The burden of proof is on the AGW alarmists. If you think there is an
error in Marvin's efforts to debunk your religion, point it out.

Already pointed out that Marvin lied about the 'no warming in
16 years', what else are you looking for specifically? His pet
little cosmic ray theory? There are at least a half-dozen papers
blowing that out of the water. The CO2 came from dissolving coral?
Which crackpot statement do you want to defend?

Your own side says there has not been warming in 16 years. Take it up
with them.

Remind them that they aren't helping "the cause."

A half-dozen pal-reviewed papers. Nice.

Are you saying *no* CO2 came from dissolving coral?

Aren't the warmophobes complaining about the disappearance of coral?
Where do you think it goes?

I'm still
waiting for him to "Explain to us exactly why the absorption bands
and the various radiation flows are not significant".

First, your quotes seem to be misplaced. As written, it appears that
"explain to us" is part of your request, not his statement.

Since your ability to quote is in question, a cite is needed pursue
this issue.

That's exactly right. Marvin disputes the relevance of GHG's
to global climate, stating "you were bringing up CO2 absorption
bands that were in between the sun's black body curve, and the
earths, and trying to argue they were significant". Not that
the statement makes any sense at all.

So you don't even understand the statement, but you dispute it.

We're dealing with a real genius here, folks.

 

[hda]

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 02:59:07 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 25, 1:34 am, hda <agent...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:07:01 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24 Dec, 21:42, hda <agent...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:44:11 -0500, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com
wrote:

"Marvin the Martian"  wrote in message
news:4KWdnR8Cz8laJ0rNnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.

Really asshole?
[snip]
Some assholes said
[snip]
That's why you're an asshole!
]snip]
someone you asshole lie and
[snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that there
[snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have an
intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for anyone
with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's long suit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to know.

The martian is very exact, not you, not hot like 4th rock from the sun
unlike venus. AND all, true.

He's certainly not precise in his expression, and seems to harbour
quite a few ideas that aren't reality based.

Logic, how would you know ? You are evasive as well on the questions
posed. Try some close-reading for a start.

Been there, done. Marvin the Martian obviously hasn't.

BS evades or smears.

BS shows a reading - comprehension problem, or what ?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 25, 1:34 am, hda <agent...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:07:01 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman









bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24 Dec, 21:42, hda <agent...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:44:11 -0500, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com
wrote:

"Marvin the Martian"  wrote in message
news:4KWdnR8Cz8laJ0rNnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.

Really asshole?
[snip]
Some assholes said
[snip]
That's why you're an asshole!
]snip]
someone you asshole lie and
[snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that there
[snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have an
intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for anyone
with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's long suit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to know.

The martian is very exact, not you, not hot like 4th rock from the sun
unlike venus. AND all, true.

He's certainly not precise in his expression, and seems to harbour
quite a few ideas that aren't reality based.

Logic, how would you know ? You are evasive as well on the questions
posed. Try some close-reading for a start.

Been there, done. Marvin the Martian obviously hasn't.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 25, 4:03 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:02:58 -0600, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:07:01 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 24 Dec, 21:42, hda <agent...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:44:11 -0500, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com
wrote:
"Marvin the Martian"  wrote in message
news:4KWdnR8Cz8laJ0rNnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...\
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.

Really asshole?
[snip]
Some assholes said
[snip]
That's why you're an asshole!
]snip]
someone you asshole lie and
[snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that
there
[snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have
an intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice
obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for
anyone with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's long suit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to know.

All you have to do is state the mean global temperature of the earth as a
function of carbon dioxide, and state the concentration of carbon dioxide
as a function of human emissions.

Then show how these equations make useful predictions that work, and are
consistent with the past. This is called in my country "The scientific
method".

It is not. The scientific method isn't about predictions and simulation, it's
about hypothesis and experiment. Historically, practically any field of research
that was not verified by experiment was mostly bogus.

Such as geology and evolitionary biology?

Nobody, smart or dumb, can predict the evolution of a complex chaotic system,
even if they understand all the physics and all the states and all the inputs,
which in this case nobody does.

John Larkin doesn't really appreciate that systems which have chaotic
sub-elements may not themselves be either chaotic or unpredictable.
We've been trying to educate him on this point fro some years now, but
without success.

And besides, you can do nothing about it. So why don't you design some
electronics... which can be verified by experiment.

And in a way that even John Larkin can undersand.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 25, 4:33 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:11:50 -0600, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:03:52 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:02:58 -0600, Marvin the Martian
mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:07:01 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 24 Dec, 21:42, hda <agent...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:44:11 -0500, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com
wrote:
"Marvin the Martian"  wrote in message
news:4KWdnR8Cz8laJ0rNnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.

Really asshole?
[snip]
Some assholes said
[snip]
That's why you're an asshole!
]snip]
someone you asshole lie and
[snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that
there
[snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have
an intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice
obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for
anyone with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's long suit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to know..

All you have to do is state the mean global temperature of the earth as
a function of carbon dioxide, and state the concentration of carbon
dioxide as a function of human emissions.

Then show how these equations make useful predictions that work, and are
consistent with the past. This is called in my country "The scientific
method".

It is not. The scientific method isn't about predictions and simulation,
it's about hypothesis and experiment.

A prediction is a hypothesis. I don't know where you get this
"simulation" stuff unless you're talking about the alarmist who use
simulations to "prove" their hypothesis. I never mentioned simulation.

Historically, practically any
field of research that was not verified by experiment was mostly bogus..

Nobody, smart or dumb, can predict the evolution of a complex chaotic
system, even if they understand all the physics and all the states and
all the inputs, which in this case nobody does.

That's nice. Maybe I even agree with that.

However, Svensmark has a climate theory that is consistent with the last
500 million years and has predicted the last 16 years, so climate isn't
one of those unknowable complex chaotic systems.

If enough people manufacture enough theories, one or two will look pretty good.
I could do a polynomial regression on climate history, publish an equation, and
look like a genius.

Probably not, but you could provide a lot of innocent amusement by
trying.

And besides, you can do nothing about it. So why don't you design some
electronics... which can be verified by experiment.

Ah! I see the problem. Apparently MR. "IEEE" Slowman included
sci.electronics.design in the newsgroups. I've trimmed that group out out
of the follow ups.

He pollutes s.e.d. with his climate nonsense and moronic, droning insults..

By which he means that I point out when he gets stuff wrong - as he
often does when he ventures outside of electronics.

He claims he used to design electronics some decades ago.

I claim to be still designing stuff today - sadly not for money.

He needs a day job.

Too true.

Aren't there any Wal-Marts in Australia? Imagine Sloman as a greeter!

There aren't, and there are more useful things that John Larkin could
do with what imagination he's got, such as dreaming up original
insults, rather than stealing other people's.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 25, 8:56 am, k...@att.bizzz wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:33:31 -0800, John Larkin









jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:11:50 -0600, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:03:52 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:02:58 -0600, Marvin the Martian
mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:07:01 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 21:42, hda <agent...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:44:11 -0500, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com
wrote:

"Marvin the Martian"  wrote in message
news:4KWdnR8Cz8laJ0rNnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.

Really asshole?
[snip]
Some assholes said
[snip]
That's why you're an asshole!
]snip]
someone you asshole lie and
[snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that
there
[snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have
an intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice
obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for
anyone with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's long suit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to know.

All you have to do is state the mean global temperature of the earth as
a function of carbon dioxide, and state the concentration of carbon
dioxide as a function of human emissions.

Then show how these equations make useful predictions that work, and are
consistent with the past. This is called in my country "The scientific
method".

It is not. The scientific method isn't about predictions and simulation,
it's about hypothesis and experiment.

A prediction is a hypothesis. I don't know where you get this
"simulation" stuff unless you're talking about the alarmist who use
simulations to "prove" their hypothesis. I never mentioned simulation.

Simulation == fact is all Slowman talks about.









Historically, practically any
field of research that was not verified by experiment was mostly bogus.

Nobody, smart or dumb, can predict the evolution of a complex chaotic
system, even if they understand all the physics and all the states and
all the inputs, which in this case nobody does.

That's nice. Maybe I even agree with that.

However, Svensmark has a climate theory that is consistent with the last
500 million years and has predicted the last 16 years, so climate isn't
one of those unknowable complex chaotic systems.

If enough people manufacture enough theories, one or two will look pretty good.
I could do a polynomial regression on climate history, publish an equation, and
look like a genius.

Hmm.  Isn't that exactly what the AGW proponents have done?  Good
enough for Slowman.

Krw is stupid enough that even the other right-wing nitwits have
noticed.

And besides, you can do nothing about it. So why don't you design some
electronics... which can be verified by experiment.

Ah! I see the problem. Apparently MR. "IEEE" Slowman included
sci.electronics.design in the newsgroups. I've trimmed that group out out
of the follow ups.

Why?  Several here are following along.  You're giving Slowman a good
spanking.

Krw *really* doesn't know very much.

He pollutes s.e.d. with his climate nonsense and moronic, droning insults. He
claims he used to design electronics some decades ago. He needs a day job.
Aren't there any Wal-Marts in Australia? Imagine Sloman as a greeter!

No way!  Walmart greeters have to be helpful and nice to the
customers.

As opposed to the rest of Walmart staff? That would be an interesting
way to run a retail business, but then again, Walmart management is
known for being less than helpful and nice to their employees, which
may rub off.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[hifi-tek]

"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:37a2ed8b-5de0-43d3-a103-1d6970ba0ff8@lb9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 25, 4:03 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:02:58 -0600, Marvin the Martian
mar...@ontomars.org
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:07:01 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 24 Dec, 21:42, hda <agent...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:44:11 -0500, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com
wrote:
"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
news:4KWdnR8Cz8laJ0rNnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...\
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.

Really asshole?
[snip]
Some assholes said
[snip]
That's why you're an asshole!
]snip]
someone you asshole lie and
[snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that
there
[snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have
an intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice
obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for
anyone with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's long suit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to know.

All you have to do is state the mean global temperature of the earth as a
function of carbon dioxide, and state the concentration of carbon dioxide
as a function of human emissions.

Then show how these equations make useful predictions that work, and are
consistent with the past. This is called in my country "The scientific
method".

It is not. The scientific method isn't about predictions and simulation,
it's
about hypothesis and experiment. Historically, practically any field of
research
that was not verified by experiment was mostly bogus.

Such as geology and evolitionary biology?

Nobody, smart or dumb, can predict the evolution of a complex chaotic
system,
even if they understand all the physics and all the states and all the
inputs,
which in this case nobody does.

John Larkin doesn't really appreciate that systems which have chaotic
sub-elements may not themselves be either chaotic or unpredictable.
We've been trying to educate him on this point fro some years now, but
without success.

And besides, you can do nothing about it. So why don't you design some
electronics... which can be verified by experiment.

And in a way that even John Larkin can undersand.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Well, BS learnt how to spell 'Sydney'. Too bad the loser can't spell
'understand'. OK group, is everybody tired of this BS loser who is nothing
but an ad hominem spewer? How about let's all ignore the BS artist and
never, never reply to his posts, UNLESS it is electronics related? I am so
tired of the AGW crap.
OK, rant over.
Tom
P.S. required electronic content: What op amp(s) would be your choice for a
quiet 600 ohm mic preamplifier? Cost no object.
Thanks,
Tom

 

[SoothSayer]

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 13:52:21 -0500, "hifi-tek" <t.hoehler@insightbb.com>
wrote:

P.S. required electronic content: What op amp(s) would be your choice for a
quiet 600 ohm mic preamplifier? Cost no object.
Thanks,
Tom

Burr Brown (new ownership now tho) instrumentation op amp.

Zetex finals.

 

[hifi-tek]

"SoothSayer" <SaySooth@TheMonastery.org> wrote in message
news:62vjd856ou7db2ttsohp0m7g8o43287jp7@4ax.com...

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 13:52:21 -0500, "hifi-tek" <t.hoehler@insightbb.com
wrote:

P.S. required electronic content: What op amp(s) would be your choice for
a
quiet 600 ohm mic preamplifier? Cost no object.
Thanks,
Tom


Burr Brown (new ownership now tho) instrumentation op amp.

Zetex finals.

TI owns them now, right? Thanks for the recommendation.
Tom

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 02:59:07 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Dec 25, 1:34 am, hda <agent...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:07:01 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman

The martian is very exact, not you, not hot like 4th rock from the sun
unlike venus. AND all, true.

He's certainly not precise in his expression, and seems to harbour quite
a few ideas that aren't reality based.

Logic, how would you know ? You are evasive as well on the questions
posed. Try some close-reading for a start.

Been there, done. Marvin the Martian obviously hasn't.

Your replies are heavy in hubris, vapid on science, and you appear to be
running on pure arrogance and ego.

For example, I point out you have no AGW theory to defend because you
have never stated it after repeated requests to do so.

Your reply? First to say that it's in the next IPCC report, and then you
claim you already stated it... which is a contradiction.

Then when I point to Svensmark, you point to a correction but never say
what was corrected (I'm guessing it was either the period where the
earth's magnetic field flipped which threw off the proxies for cosmic ray
intensities, or the straw man argument about the energies of the cosmic
rays (lower energy cosmic rays don't form clouds as well as high energy
cosmic rays).

But there is no way to tell what your rebuttal IS, as you didn't state
THAT either. Just some correction, and then "not as convincing". No way
to argue with your vapid postings.

The irony then comes in your whining about precision. LOL! You avoid
being pinned down and addressing the argument, and won't even state what
you're defending, you REFUSE to defend your non-existent theory, and you
say my postings are not reality based or precise?

That's just too damned funny. How do they give Ph.D.'s in Australia? Send
in two box tops and fifty cents and wait 6 weeks for delivery?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 03:04:05 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Dec 25, 4:03 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:02:58 -0600, Marvin the Martian
mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:07:01 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 24 Dec, 21:42, hda <agent...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:44:11 -0500, "P E Schoen"
p...@peschoen.com
wrote:
"Marvin the Martian"  wrote in message
news:4KWdnR8Cz8laJ0rNnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...\
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.

Really asshole?
[snip]
Some assholes said
[snip]
That's why you're an asshole!
]snip]
someone you asshole lie and
[snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means
that there
[snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to
have an intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal
orifice obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for
anyone with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's long suit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to
know.

All you have to do is state the mean global temperature of the earth
as a function of carbon dioxide, and state the concentration of carbon
dioxide as a function of human emissions.

Then show how these equations make useful predictions that work, and
are consistent with the past. This is called in my country "The
scientific method".

It is not. The scientific method isn't about predictions and
simulation, it's about hypothesis and experiment. Historically,
practically any field of research that was not verified by experiment
was mostly bogus.

Such as geology and evolitionary biology?

.... and Slowman tries changing the subject to avoid having to address
that his favorite AGW "scientist" aren't following the scientific method.

Once again, Dr. B.S. refused to post the predictive THEORY of AGW that he
says exists.

< snip slowman's childish ad hom>

Feel better that you vented?

Good, Now state your theory, showing how it predicts and is consistent
with past observation, or admit you're lying.

I'd be good if you have a working AGW theory that says CO2 is causing
climate change. But it is becoming clear that you're talking out of your
ass.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 11:21:05 -0800, SoothSayer
<SaySooth@TheMonastery.org> wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 13:52:21 -0500, "hifi-tek" <t.hoehler@insightbb.com
wrote:

P.S. required electronic content: What op amp(s) would be your choice for a
quiet 600 ohm mic preamplifier? Cost no object.
Thanks,
Tom


Burr Brown (new ownership now tho) instrumentation op amp.

Zetex finals.

Probably a bunch of paralleled BF862s, single-ended if possible. That
will get you way below 1 nv/rthz (depending on how many you parallel)
with very low current noise.

But it's likely that room noise will overpower preamp noise for any
reasonable preamp design.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 13:52:21 -0500, "hifi-tek"
<t.hoehler@insightbb.com> wrote:

Bill Sloman, Sydney

Well, BS learnt how to spell 'Sydney'. Too bad the loser can't spell
'understand'. OK group, is everybody tired of this BS loser who is nothing
but an ad hominem spewer? How about let's all ignore the BS artist and
never, never reply to his posts, UNLESS it is electronics related? I am so
tired of the AGW crap.
OK, rant over.
Tom

Well! You just fed the Slowman troll by posting a reply to his
nonsense. Everyone _PLEASE!_ shun Slowman, and spare us the
annoyance.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:29:50 -0500, "hifi-tek"
<t.hoehler@insightbb.com> wrote:

"SoothSayer" <SaySooth@TheMonastery.org> wrote in message
news:62vjd856ou7db2ttsohp0m7g8o43287jp7@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 13:52:21 -0500, "hifi-tek" <t.hoehler@insightbb.com
wrote:

P.S. required electronic content: What op amp(s) would be your choice for
a
quiet 600 ohm mic preamplifier? Cost no object.
Thanks,
Tom


Burr Brown (new ownership now tho) instrumentation op amp.

Zetex finals.

TI owns them now, right?

Correct. They're still using the name, though.

> Thanks for the recommendation.