Failed Electro

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:48:18 +0000, James Arthur wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
On Aug 13, 12:02 am, John Larkin wrote:

What, you find that inconsistent with a determination to sell
mind-rippingly good, insanely priced, perfect-out-the-door products to
the most demanding customers on the planet?

I don't find any inconsistency in your means to achieve the result you
are striving for; I just worry about the level of quality control that
lets you be so optimistic about the results you claim to have
achieved.

This is something you misunderstand. It's not optimism at all - it's
something called confidence, that comes from doing it right the first
time, by distrusting everything along the way - you don't sign off on
the component or subassembly until you can _demonstrate_ that it meets
or exceeds the spec.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:35:33 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Aug 14, 1:48 am, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Aug 13, 12:02 am, John Larkin wrote:
What, you find that inconsistent with a determination to sell
mind-rippingly good, insanely priced, perfect-out-the-door products to
the most demanding customers on the planet?

I don't find any inconsistency in your means to achieve the result you
are striving for; I just worry about the level of quality control that
lets you be so optimistic about the results you claim to have
achieved.

What a skewed reality.  You accept interpretation and
manipulation of data you've never seen from people you
don't know without reservation, yet dismiss a real guy's
reliability experience with years of quality product he's
delivered to the world's most demanding customers.

The data I'm accepting has passed through peer-review and is cross-
checked against the work of other scientists that also goes through
peer-review.

John Larkin's claims about his gear don't have the same kind of built-
in quality control. He may be selling to the world's most demanding
customers - as was Cambridge Instruments back in the 1980's when I
worked for them - but my opression is that these customers are mainly
interested in getting hold of gear that they can use to solve their
immediate problems; if it works, they aren't all that interested in
how well it works.

You ill-mannered, useless old fart. You don't work at all.


John

 

[terryc]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:07:32 -0700, bill.sloman wrote:

That's not what I said and its also quite untrue. The papers the IPCC
survey and report on are peer-reviewed before they get into the
published literature, and the IPCC's reporting process shows up
conflicting conclusions (which is the second string of the scientific
quality control process).

Wasn't that the point of the hockey curve papers, i.e they had not been
peer-reviewed, but merely published and published with a very murky
history.

 

[terryc]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:45:45 -0700, bill.sloman wrote:

This doesn't mean that one discards every paper ever published as
unreliable - the bulk of the published papers on anthropogenic global
warming form a coherent and self-consistent mass of evidence
supporting the hypothesis.

If that self-consistent mass is based on a popular vote, then it isn't
science.

Graham doesn't know enough about science to understand this,

Or isn't indoctrinated enough?

Lets face it, when the pope said that the sun revolved around the earth,
jst about every contemporary "scientist" agreed that this was true.
What is different now?

 

On Aug 14, 1:24 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
From my point of view, it is Graham's pretensions to knowledge that
are really bizarre. It is as if he aspired to compete in formula one
riding a unicycle.

You ARE indeed quite MAD. It's time you sought treatment. Your detachment
from reality accelerates every single day.

Possibly. But I've got a long way to go before I'm as detached as the
average psychiatrist, let alone you or Jim Thompson, and I'd have to
be much further out of touch with reality than I am now to be silly
enough to consider taking your advice.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Aug 14, 1:21 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
The data I'm accepting has passed through peer-review

Like Mann's ?

Bwahahahahahahaaaha !

Graham is indulging in the fallacy of the excluded middle. Her seems
to think that because one academic paper was inadequately refereed, no
academic paper is to be trusted, and - in a sense - he is right.

I've published a couple of comments in Review of Scientific
Instruments and a couple of other peer-reviewed journals pointing out
that specific papers are inadequate, which is another aspect of the
academic quality control system.

This doesn't mean that one discards every paper ever published as
unreliable - the bulk of the published papers on anthropogenic global
warming form a coherent and self-consistent mass of evidence
supporting the hypothesis.

Graham doesn't know enough about science to understand this, and
nowhere near enough about the science involved to read any of the
papers and understand the evidence for himself, but he is too much of
a conceited know-it-all to believe this.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Aug 15, 3:59 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

John Larkin's claims about his gear don't have the same kind of built-
in quality control.

That is a baseless slander.

All I had to do was read your reply James at the botton of the page, to KNOW it
was a post of Sloman's. What is the matter with the man ?

Some residual contact with reality? I'm not less scpetical about John
Larkin's fantasies tha I am about yours?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Aug 15, 4:38 am, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

John Larkin's claims about his gear don't have the same kind of built-
in quality control.

That is a baseless slander.

All I had to do was read your reply James at the botton of the page, to KNOW it
was a post of Sloman's. What is the matter with the man ?

He just jumps to conclusions, that's all.  He knows America
better than Americans, from his sources overseas,

I do seem to be free of certain delusions Americans have about the
perfection of their electoral system and their health care systems; I
imagine I'm less exposed to the domestic propaganda machine which
starts telling Americans that America is perfect as soon as they get
into the education system, and reinforces the message through the mass
media for the rest of their lives.

John's business better than John, etc.  

John Larkin does seem to think that anybody expressing an opinion on
his business is - ipso facto - claiming to know it better than he
does, which is rather silly.

And then he sticks to his unloaded guns and lectures us.

It's for your own good.

I've seen John's gear.  It's good.

Of course it is good, but mind-rippingly good, insanely priced,
perfect-out-the-door good?

Some scepticism is obligatory.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Aug 15, 9:44 am, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:48:18 +0000, James Arthur wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Aug 13, 12:02 am, John Larkin wrote:

What, you find that inconsistent with a determination to sell
mind-rippingly good, insanely priced, perfect-out-the-door products to
the most demanding customers on the planet?

I don't find any inconsistency in your means to achieve the result you
are striving for; I just worry about the level of quality control that
lets you be so optimistic about the results you claim to have
achieved.

This is something you misunderstand. It's not optimism at all - it's
something called confidence, that comes from doing it right the first
time, by distrusting everything along the way - you don't sign off on
the component or subassembly until you can _demonstrate_ that it meets
or exceeds the spec.

We've all got that, mostly with good reason. Even so, the evidence
suggests that nobody gets everything right, every time.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Aug 14, 2:07 pm, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Aug 14, 1:48 am, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Aug 13, 12:02 am, John Larkin wrote:
What, you find that inconsistent with a determination to sell
mind-rippingly good, insanely priced, perfect-out-the-door products to
the most demanding customers on the planet?
I don't find any inconsistency in your means to achieve the result you
are striving for; I just worry about the level of quality control that
lets you be so optimistic about the results you claim to have
achieved.
What a skewed reality.  You accept interpretation and
manipulation of data you've never seen from people you
don't know without reservation, yet dismiss a real guy's
reliability experience with years of quality product he's
delivered to the world's most demanding customers.

The data I'm accepting has passed through peer-review and is cross-
checked against the work of other scientists that also goes through
peer-review.

By your own admission, the data are not reviewed.

That's not what I said and its also quite untrue. The papers the IPCC
survey and report on are peer-reviewed before they get into the
published literature, and the IPCC's reporting process shows up
conflicting conclusions (which is the second string of the scientific
quality control process).

John Larkin's claims about his gear don't have the same kind of built-
in quality control.

That is a baseless slander.

There's nothing slanderous about it. There's no control of any sort on
what he posts here. In any event "mind-rippingly good, insanely
priced, perfect-out-the-door" aren't the sort of claims that you could
usefully test in a court of law.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Aug 14, 1:23 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
James Arthur wrote:

What a skewed reality.  You accept interpretation and
manipulation of data you've never seen from people you
don't know without reservation, yet dismiss a real guy's
reliability experience with years of quality product he's
delivered to the world's most demanding customers.

That's bizarre.

Bill IS bizarre.

I know stuff.

You talk a lot.

I've never seen you make a single decent design suggestion. Speaks volumes.

Then you haven't been paying attention - which isn't unexpected.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Aug 15, 10:43 am, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:35:33 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Aug 14, 1:48 am, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Aug 13, 12:02 am, John Larkin wrote:
What, you find that inconsistent with a determination to sell
mind-rippingly good, insanely priced, perfect-out-the-door products to
the most demanding customers on the planet?

I don't find any inconsistency in your means to achieve the result you
are striving for; I just worry about the level of quality control that
lets you be so optimistic about the results you claim to have
achieved.

What a skewed reality.  You accept interpretation and
manipulation of data you've never seen from people you
don't know without reservation, yet dismiss a real guy's
reliability experience with years of quality product he's
delivered to the world's most demanding customers.

The data I'm accepting has passed through peer-review and is cross-
checked against the work of other scientists that also goes through
peer-review.

John Larkin's claims about his gear don't have the same kind of built-
in quality control. He may be selling to the world's most demanding
customers - as was Cambridge Instruments back in the 1980's when I
worked for them - but my opression is that these customers are mainly
interested in getting hold of gear that they can use to solve their
immediate problems; if it works, they aren't all that interested in
how well it works.

You ill-mannered, useless old fart.

Such a polite observation.

You don't work at all.

Much as I'd like to. Not enough to flatter over-confident Americans
with delicate ego's but short of that I'm open to all offers.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Aug 15, 9:40 am, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:47:18 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

You didn't have Bill Sloman in mind did you ?

The most reliable sign of sanity is doing the same thing while expecting
different results.

I think you may have got that wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:31:55 -0500, "Tim Williams"
<tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:a6469adc-3512-40af-b680-f96dee97906b@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Of course it is good, but mind-rippingly good, insanely priced,
perfect-out-the-door good?

Amazing, isn't it? Can you think back, way back, I know it's a stretch,
back when you were doing electronics, what your impressions were of your
first Tektronix 475? One of the best instruments ever, perfectly good off
the shelf, and worth a bundle, brand new.

Tim

Oh, perhaps it wasn't clear, but by "insanely priced" I meant really,
really high.

John

 

[Eeyore]

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

posts here.

Bill wants Usenet posts ISO9000 approved ?

Has he actually developed a sense of humour or is it increasing total madness ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

bill.sloman wrote:

That's not what I said and its also quite untrue. The papers the IPCC
survey and report on are peer-reviewed before they get into the
published literature, and the IPCC's reporting process shows up
conflicting conclusions (which is the second string of the scientific
quality control process).

Wasn't that the point of the hockey curve papers, i.e they had not been
peer-reviewed, but merely published and published with a very murky
history.

Steve McIntyre was peer reviewing Mann's work. I think he smelt a rat and
that's why he asked for the raw data which he was refused using dubious
excuses relating to copyright issues.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354

Somewhere there you'll find the whole story.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

John Larkin's claims about his gear don't have the same kind of built-
in quality control. He may be selling to the world's most demanding
customers - as was Cambridge Instruments back in the 1980's when I
worked for them - but my opression is that these customers are mainly
interested in getting hold of gear that they can use to solve their
immediate problems; if it works, they aren't all that interested in
how well it works.

You ill-mannered, useless old fart. You don't work at all.

Well there is that to be borne in mind of course. Talk is cheap when you don't
need to back up anything of your own.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

John Larkin wrote.

You don't work at all.

Much as I'd like to.

But you DON'T. I'm beginning to wonder now if your job applications have failed
not because of your age but your attitude.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rich Grise wrote:

you don't sign off on the component or subassembly until you can
_demonstrate_ that it meets or exceeds the spec.

Ah yes. Signing off ! That says it all. Been asked to do that more than a few
times. No disasters so far !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

James Arthur wrote:

I've seen John's gear. It's good.

I can well believe it. Mine is somewhat simpler but I take equal pride in delivering
a good product.

Graham