Super duper hype fast FET driver?

[Martin Brown]

On 26/08/2011 15:48, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Aug 26, 3:04 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:02:12 -0500, Les Cargill

lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:

A truly self-consistent public health policy would be *FAR* too
invasive.

You could fairly easily do something to stop the junk food industry
targeting young children with adverts for extremely unhealthy foods for
instance. The UK government is running scared of doing this at present.
The industry wouldn't like it...

A health policy doesn't have to be "self-consistent". What is should
do is maximize health, whatever ways it can.

Self consistency is a good indicator of a reasonable policy.
How else do you hope to maximise health amongst a population of couch
potatoes so determined to eat themselve to death or illness? Obesity and
morbid obesity are far too high and still rising.

But spending loads of money on measures that don't do much to maximise
health while ignoring cheaper - more effective - measures is the way
the US has got itself a health care system that costs half as much
again per head as the French and German systems while failing to
deliver any better health care to the fully insured and rather poorer
health care to the less well-off.

Law enforcement can work to reduce the availability of heroin,

It can make an effort, but it doesn't seem to have made it difficult
to get hold of.

Though it does help to keep the street prices high and quality low which
causes additional problems. It is curious and ironic that there is
actually a *shortage* of medicinal opiate based drugs at the moment.

but it can't do anything about fried chicken.

In principle it could, but Prohibition demonstrated that banning stuff
that people want doesn't stop them getting it. The War on Drugs has
repeated the lesson, but US politicians seem to be very slow on the up-
take.

No they are pretty good on the uptake of brown paper envelopes stuffed
with used notes from the various lobbyists working for oil, coal, prison
warehousing of offenders and junk food. BTW Whatever happened to that
one caught red handed who was going to spill the beans?

Nowhere else on the planet has such an addiction to overdosing on high
fructose corn syrup and dodgy modified trans fats. Industrial scale
unhealthy diets designed to shorten life span sold to a gullible public.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 07:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Aug 26, 12:10 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:39:23 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 25, 3:42 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:12:53 -0500, Les Cargill

lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Aug 25, 7:00 am, John Larkin
snip

In fact you seem to think that denialist propaganda miniminising the
dangers of persisting anthropogenic global warming is some kind of
useful public service, rather than a cynical exercise by the fossil-
carbon extraction industry designed to let them keep on digging up and
selling fossil-carbon until the damage it causes is blatant enough to
be undeniable.

All one must really do is note that fossil fuels replaced
*slavery* in our civilization. One can admit all manner of
horrible things caused by them, but that's the  basis of a pretty
compelling reductio ad absurbum.

Whether it's true or not is almost beside the point.

Technology in general and fossil fuels in particular changed our
world. Unions take credit for "the weekend" but it was actually
engineers, and productivity, that changed civilization.

And a bit more engineering - and a lot of investment in renewable
energy generation - could change it again and give us a sustainable
economy.

We can keep on burning fossil carbon like there's no tomorrow for
another couple of decades but our children won't be happy about the
consequences.

A conviently unprovable claim.

Obviously. Predictions can only be "proved" by settling down and
waiting for the predicted event to show up. This may not be the best
way to react to the prediction that the climate is getting warmer, and
that it is going to be getting warmer progressively faster if we don't
curb our habit of burning fossil carbon and dumping the extra CO2 this
produces into the atmopshere.

There's undeniable evidence that the global average temperature is
rising more or less in step with the the CO2 level in the atmosphere.
The temperature signal is noisy, but the long term trend is pretty
obvious.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/

John

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 26, 12:10 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:39:23 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 25, 3:42 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:12:53 -0500, Les Cargill

lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Aug 25, 7:00 am, John Larkin
snip

In fact you seem to think that denialist propaganda miniminising the
dangers of persisting anthropogenic global warming is some kind of
useful public service, rather than a cynical exercise by the fossil-
carbon extraction industry designed to let them keep on digging up and
selling fossil-carbon until the damage it causes is blatant enough to
be undeniable.

All one must really do is note that fossil fuels replaced
*slavery* in our civilization. One can admit all manner of
horrible things caused by them, but that's the  basis of a pretty
compelling reductio ad absurbum.

Whether it's true or not is almost beside the point.

Technology in general and fossil fuels in particular changed our
world. Unions take credit for "the weekend" but it was actually
engineers, and productivity, that changed civilization.

And a bit more engineering - and a lot of investment in renewable
energy generation - could change it again and give us a sustainable
economy.

We can keep on burning fossil carbon like there's no tomorrow for
another couple of decades but our children won't be happy about the
consequences.

A conviently unprovable claim.

Obviously. Predictions can only be "proved" by settling down and
waiting for the predicted event to show up. This may not be the best
way to react to the prediction that the climate is getting warmer, and
that it is going to be getting warmer progressively faster if we don't
curb our habit of burning fossil carbon and dumping the extra CO2 this
produces into the atmopshere.

There's undeniable evidence that the global average temperature is
rising more or less in step with the the CO2 level in the atmosphere.
The temperature signal is noisy, but the long term trend is pretty
obvious.

And we are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere every year, so the
temperature is going to go up progressively faster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

If weather patterns remain more or less the same as the climate warms
up - which isn't what the climate modellers expect - your kids may be
lucky, but past episodes of global warming have involved some sudden
and dramatic complications.

The rapid rise at the end of the last ice age gave us the "Younger
Dryas" when the Gulf Stream turned off abrupty for 1300 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, some 55.8 million years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

managed to to free somewhere between 2500 and 6800 gigatons of carbon
from what was probably methane ice in two separate, fairly rapid,
bursts.

At the moment - by contrast - we seem to be injecting some 9 gigatons
of fossil carbon into the atmosphere every year, roughly half of which
is absorbed in the oceans and by terrestrial vegetation, while the
rest boosts greenhouse warming. We seem to have added about 900
gigatons of carbon to the atmopshere since the start of the Industrial
Revolution, which is rather faster than the "rapid" Paleocene-Eocene
injections.

If we manage to hit whatever level it was that triggered the Paleocene-
Eocene methane emissions we could be in for a very interesting time.

Given the trends in California weather and snowpack, my kids will be
very happy about the consequences.

You make your predictions, and the scientific community makes theirs.
They seem rather more likely to know what they are talking about, but
taking them seriously involves making significant changes to the way
we generate our electricly and power our cars.

Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" makes the point that the people who
could have anticipated disasters in earlier societies mostly didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 26, 3:04 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:02:12 -0500, Les Cargill



lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Aug 25, 9:47 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>  wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:16:45 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky

nos...@nowhere.com>  wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

Weak, irresponsible and stupid don't survive. That is what they call an
evolution.

That's a pretty mean attitude.

But realistic. US society protects people - none too effectively -
against the illegal drugs of addiction, but does nothing to prevent
them eating themselves into lethal obesity or drinking themselves to
death. you might want to think about what a self-consistent public
health policy might look like.

--
BillSloman, Nijmegen

We know next to nothing about the pathologies of obesity. When doctors
take insulin production into account it begins to look like carbs,
*all* carbs contribute mightily to it - and a "healthy diet" as
it's presently advertised by gummint is thick in carbs.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carbs-weight-gain.html

I've dropped 20 pounds myself by emphasizing frozen veggies and meat
and cutting back on carbs.

A truly self-consistent public health policy would be *FAR* too
invasive.

A health policy doesn't have to be "self-consistent". What is should
do is maximize health, whatever ways it can.

But spending loads of money on measures that don't do much to maximise
health while ignoring cheaper - more effective - measures is the way
the US has got itself a health care system that costs half as much
again per head as the French and German systems while failing to
deliver any better health care to the fully insured and rather poorer
health care to the less well-off.

Law enforcement can work to reduce the availability of heroin,

It can make an effort, but it doesn't seem to have made it difficult
to get hold of.

but it can't do anything about fried chicken.

In principle it could, but Prohibition demonstrated that banning stuff
that people want doesn't stop them getting it. The War on Drugs has
repeated the lesson, but US politicians seem to be very slow on the up-
take.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 26, 12:20 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:18:26 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 25, 2:57 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:28:40 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 25, 1:04 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:59:17 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:02 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:09:33 -0500, John S <soph...@invalid.org
wrote:

On 8/24/2011 3:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?

Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.

The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.

I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

If you really believe that, then it is like me arguing against a
religion. I concede that I cannot win against faith.

Not at all. It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

Legalising soft drugs drop the profit margin on supplying them, and
makes the people who supply the drug a part of the community.

Nobody talks about liquor store owners, Starbucks, or the people who
sell cigarettes as "professional predators".

Wrong. In the case of cigarettes, I call them predators and murderers.
And I'm not alone.

But you haven't persuaded the FBI to arrest them and lock them up in
prison for decades, as you would be doing if your policies against
dangerous addictive drugs were even vaguely internally consistent.

How do you suggest I persuade the FBI to do that?

You, and the people who share your attitude, might have tried writing
to your congressman. I haven't yet heard of any public campaign to
have the tobacco company executives who paid for the lying pro-tobacco
campaign to be put behind bars. Drug-pushers on million dollar
salaries don't seem to attract that kind of attnetion.

You, and the people alarmed about climate change, should try to
personally reduce your carbon footprint.

It would be quixotic waste of time.

Moron.

Clearly you don't know what the word means.

"Sloman" gets pretty close.

I think you might need to learn how to use Google search.

What is moronic is the war on drugs. The Great Experiment proved that
prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and the US spent the time since
Repeal proving that it doesn't work for other drugs of addiction
either. You voted for the nitwits who keep on supporting it anyway,
which doesn't make you very bright.

I don't vote.

That's a relief.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 26, 12:08 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:45:08 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 25, 3:00 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:27:36 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:00 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:00:52 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?

Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.

The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.

I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

Right. It's a simple matter of public safety. We can't let
professional designer-drug experts prey on people with limited
resources of self-control.

But you seem to be perfectly happy to let professional purveyors of
financially advantageous mis-information prey on people with a limited
capacity for critical thinking.

In fact you seem to think that denialist propaganda miniminising the
dangers of persisting anhtropogenic global warming is some kind of
useful public service, rather than a cynical exercise by the fossil-
carbon extraction industry designed to let them keep on digging up and
selling fossil-carbon until the damage it causes is blatant enough to
be undeniable.

You are very tedious and very stupid, and have very little to say
about electronics.

None of which is either true or relevant, but while John Larkin
objects to the abuse he thinks he gets in other poeoples posts, he
does seem to think that it is perfectly okay for him to dish it out
when he can't come up with a snappy one-liner.

Reasoned counter-argument does seem to be quite beyond him. He
probably wouldn't be much good at it if he tried, but I doubt that we
will ever find out.

Try making reasoned arguments about electronics, if you remember
anything about that topic.

If you had the attention span of a gnat, you might be able to remember
that I do sometimes post about electronics.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 26, 12:34 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:
On Aug 25, 6:00 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

And your example countries are?

Germany had a much lower drug problems in the 80's and I happened to
live smack at the border, on the Dutch side. Crossed it daily. So I had
years of daily comparison.

The only countries that I've adduced - France versus the Netherlands,
has the less permisive Frence regime stuck with a slightly worse drug
problem than the more permissive Netherlands.

The US has a bigger drug problem than either, and its the world leader
in the - misconceived - "war on drugs".

I live in a rural setting quite similar to where I lived in NL. I don't
even see anything remotely similar to the grief that I saw back there in
the 80's. But again, as Nico hinted, that was the 80's, I do not know NL
recently except as a visitor and those visits were too brief.

In other words, you put your faith in anecdotal evidence, and want to
determine national policy on the basis of a few isolated local
situations with which you happen to be familiar.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Aug 26, 12:34 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Aug 25, 6:00 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:
snip
Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.
And your example countries are?
Germany had a much lower drug problems in the 80's and I happened to
live smack at the border, on the Dutch side. Crossed it daily. So I had
years of daily comparison.

The only countries that I've adduced - France versus the Netherlands,
has the less permisive Frence regime stuck with a slightly worse drug
problem than the more permissive Netherlands.
The US has a bigger drug problem than either, and its the world leader
in the - misconceived - "war on drugs".
I live in a rural setting quite similar to where I lived in NL. I don't
even see anything remotely similar to the grief that I saw back there in
the 80's. But again, as Nico hinted, that was the 80's, I do not know NL
recently except as a visitor and those visits were too brief.

In other words, you put your faith in anecdotal evidence, and want to
determine national policy on the basis of a few isolated local
situations with which you happen to be familiar.

Six years is not anecdotal. If I see people dying and become permanently
brain-damaged all around me I know full well what that means. Of course,
you can chose the head-in-the-sand strategy, maybe it makes those
problems go away. Not.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[josephkk]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:38:20 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

Mark Robarts <mrstarbom@gmail.com> wrote:

Just as a matter of interest. That people didn't live much past 35 is a com>>mon misconception. The average life expectancy of 35 is a result of a very>> high infant mortality rate and does not mean that people did not live to b>>e 90 (or that people did not previously die slowly and painfully).

Infant mortality usually is factored in in these kind of numbers. IIRC
they start counting if a child is older than 4 or 5.

That depends a lot on the country where the counting is done. In the US
from the moment the child is born. Within very few days in much of
Europe. The long time delay (years) seems to occur in third world nations
primarily. Try the CIA fact book, it may be recorded there.

?-)

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Joerg wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

In other words, you put your faith in anecdotal evidence, and want to
determine national policy on the basis of a few isolated local
situations with which you happen to be familiar.

Six years is not anecdotal. If I see people dying and become permanently
brain-damaged all around me I know full well what that means. Of course,
you can chose the head-in-the-sand strategy, maybe it makes those
problems go away. Not.

This makes you wonder how much and for how long Sloman used illegal
drugs.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

On Aug 26, 10:21 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

On 26/08/2011 15:48, Bill Sloman wrote:

In principle it could, but Prohibition demonstrated that banning stuff
that people want doesn't stop them getting it. The War on Drugs has
repeated the lesson, but US politicians seem to be very slow on the up-
take.

No they are pretty good on the uptake of brown paper envelopes stuffed
with used notes from the various lobbyists working for oil, coal, prison
warehousing of offenders and junk food.

That's a nasty thing to say without proof. It's also selective--big
labor, teachers' unions, and lawyers give more (in donations).

BTW Whatever happened to that
one caught red handed who was going to spill the beans?

Nowhere else on the planet has such an addiction to overdosing on high
fructose corn syrup and dodgy modified trans fats.

Last I looked--and it has been a bit--Canada had the world's highest
per capita consumption of hydrogenated synthetic fats.

Industrial scale
unhealthy diets designed to shorten life span sold to a gullible public.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Aug 26, 10:29 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 07:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:10 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:39:23 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 25, 3:42 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:12:53 -0500, Les Cargill

lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Aug 25, 7:00 am, John Larkin
snip

In fact you seem to think that denialist propaganda miniminising the
dangers of persisting anthropogenic global warming is some kind of
useful public service, rather than a cynical exercise by the fossil-
carbon extraction industry designed to let them keep on digging up and
selling fossil-carbon until the damage it causes is blatant enough to
be undeniable.

All one must really do is note that fossil fuels replaced
*slavery* in our civilization. One can admit all manner of
horrible things caused by them, but that's the  basis of a pretty
compelling reductio ad absurbum.

Whether it's true or not is almost beside the point.

Technology in general and fossil fuels in particular changed our
world. Unions take credit for "the weekend" but it was actually
engineers, and productivity, that changed civilization.

And a bit more engineering - and a lot of investment in renewable
energy generation - could change it again and give us a sustainable
economy.

We can keep on burning fossil carbon like there's no tomorrow for
another couple of decades but our children won't be happy about the
consequences.

A conviently unprovable claim.

Obviously. Predictions can only be "proved" by settling down and
waiting for the predicted event to show up. This may not be the best
way to react to the prediction that the climate is getting warmer, and
that it is going to be getting warmer progressively faster if we don't
curb our habit of burning fossil carbon and dumping the extra CO2 this
produces into the atmopshere.

There's undeniable evidence that the global average temperature is
rising more or less in step with the the CO2 level in the atmosphere.
The temperature signal is noisy, but the long term trend is pretty
obvious.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_r...

John

OMG! Exxon and the black-hats have penetrated CERN !

 

[Mark Robarts]

"Scholars have recently stopped watching "The Untouchables" long enough to look at what really happened during Prohibition. They found that, nationwide, there was no violent crime wave. They found that per-capita alcohol consumption decreased by nearly two-thirds. Some conclude that Prohibition, far from being the total disaster most people regard it, was a success."
Somewhere along the line you heard that Prohibition didn't work and it suits your world view to believe that story. Repeating an urban myth over an over doesn't make it true. (Same thing with Global Warming.) Teenagers who are into marijuana are more likely to become schizophrenic.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:16:02 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
<a0737051-37ad-4760-90ee-14f4edd97d40@s8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_r...

John

OMG! Exxon and the black-hats have penetrated CERN !
LOL

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 27, 1:29 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 07:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:10 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:39:23 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 25, 3:42 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:12:53 -0500, Les Cargill

lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Aug 25, 7:00 am, John Larkin
snip

In fact you seem to think that denialist propaganda miniminising the
dangers of persisting anthropogenic global warming is some kind of
useful public service, rather than a cynical exercise by the fossil-
carbon extraction industry designed to let them keep on digging up and
selling fossil-carbon until the damage it causes is blatant enough to
be undeniable.

All one must really do is note that fossil fuels replaced
*slavery* in our civilization. One can admit all manner of
horrible things caused by them, but that's the  basis of a pretty
compelling reductio ad absurbum.

Whether it's true or not is almost beside the point.

Technology in general and fossil fuels in particular changed our
world. Unions take credit for "the weekend" but it was actually
engineers, and productivity, that changed civilization.

And a bit more engineering - and a lot of investment in renewable
energy generation - could change it again and give us a sustainable
economy.

We can keep on burning fossil carbon like there's no tomorrow for
another couple of decades but our children won't be happy about the
consequences.

A conviently unprovable claim.

Obviously. Predictions can only be "proved" by settling down and
waiting for the predicted event to show up. This may not be the best
way to react to the prediction that the climate is getting warmer, and
that it is going to be getting warmer progressively faster if we don't
curb our habit of burning fossil carbon and dumping the extra CO2 this
produces into the atmopshere.

There's undeniable evidence that the global average temperature is
rising more or less in step with the the CO2 level in the atmosphere.
The temperature signal is noisy, but the long term trend is pretty
obvious.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_r

"However, we've found that the vapours previously thought to account
for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for
a small fraction of the observations – even with the enhancement of
cosmic rays"

The fact that we don't know where the aerosol nuclei in the lower
atmosphere come from is some kind of counter-evidence against
anthropogenic global warming?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 27, 4:16 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 26, 10:29 am, John Larkin



jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 07:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:10 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:39:23 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Aug 25, 3:42 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:12:53 -0500, Les Cargill

lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Aug 25, 7:00 am, John Larkin
snip

In fact you seem to think that denialist propaganda miniminising the
dangers of persisting anthropogenic global warming is some kind of
useful public service, rather than a cynical exercise by the fossil-
carbon extraction industry designed to let them keep on digging up and
selling fossil-carbon until the damage it causes is blatant enough to
be undeniable.

All one must really do is note that fossil fuels replaced
*slavery* in our civilization. One can admit all manner of
horrible things caused by them, but that's the  basis of a pretty
compelling reductio ad absurbum.

Whether it's true or not is almost beside the point.

Technology in general and fossil fuels in particular changed our
world. Unions take credit for "the weekend" but it was actually
engineers, and productivity, that changed civilization.

And a bit more engineering - and a lot of investment in renewable
energy generation - could change it again and give us a sustainable
economy.

We can keep on burning fossil carbon like there's no tomorrow for
another couple of decades but our children won't be happy about the
consequences.

A conviently unprovable claim.

Obviously. Predictions can only be "proved" by settling down and
waiting for the predicted event to show up. This may not be the best
way to react to the prediction that the climate is getting warmer, and
that it is going to be getting warmer progressively faster if we don't
curb our habit of burning fossil carbon and dumping the extra CO2 this
produces into the atmopshere.

There's undeniable evidence that the global average temperature is
rising more or less in step with the the CO2 level in the atmosphere.
The temperature signal is noisy, but the long term trend is pretty
obvious.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_r...

John

OMG!  Exxon and the black-hats have penetrated CERN !

Someone might have paid for the spin on the interpretation in The
Register. But The Register has been publishing obviously planted
denialist propaganda for a long time now - it's more likely that some
over-worked journalists are grateful to get pre-digested stuff that
they can use to fill their column.

It's not as if British science journalists know anything about
science.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[josephkk]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:47:02 +1000, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net>
wrote:

On 08/23/11 19:36, Jon Kirwan wrote:
The near trillion dollar a year business bribes everyone in
our gov't systems.

Not to mention that it is currently providing the bullets and
explosives that are being used to blow up Americans and others
in Afghanistan. You're bleeding money out the front door paying
to send soldiers to the war, and out the back door paying the
Taliban to fight against you. No wonder the country's bankrupt...

Moral or ethical bankruptcy normally proceeds monetary (fiscal)
bankruptcy.

?-/

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 11:27:28 -0700, josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:47:02 +1000, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net
wrote:

On 08/23/11 19:36, Jon Kirwan wrote:
The near trillion dollar a year business bribes everyone in
our gov't systems.

Not to mention that it is currently providing the bullets and
explosives that are being used to blow up Americans and others
in Afghanistan. You're bleeding money out the front door paying
to send soldiers to the war, and out the back door paying the
Taliban to fight against you. No wonder the country's bankrupt...

Moral or ethical bankruptcy normally proceeds monetary (fiscal)
bankruptcy.

?-/

Due to the likes of Clifford Heath.

...Jim Thompson

[On the Road, in New York]
--
| 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.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 11:27:28 -0700, josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:47:02 +1000, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net
wrote:

On 08/23/11 19:36, Jon Kirwan wrote:
The near trillion dollar a year business bribes everyone in
our gov't systems.

Not to mention that it is currently providing the bullets and
explosives that are being used to blow up Americans and others
in Afghanistan. You're bleeding money out the front door paying
to send soldiers to the war, and out the back door paying the
Taliban to fight against you. No wonder the country's bankrupt...

Moral or ethical bankruptcy normally proceeds monetary (fiscal)
^^^^^^^^ pre?
bankruptcy.

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 11:27:28 -0700, josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:47:02 +1000, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net
wrote:

On 08/23/11 19:36, Jon Kirwan wrote:
The near trillion dollar a year business bribes everyone in
our gov't systems.
Not to mention that it is currently providing the bullets and
explosives that are being used to blow up Americans and others
in Afghanistan. You're bleeding money out the front door paying
to send soldiers to the war, and out the back door paying the
Taliban to fight against you. No wonder the country's bankrupt...
Moral or ethical bankruptcy normally proceeds monetary (fiscal)
^^^^^^^^ pre?
^^^^^ per?

bankruptcy.

At least that's how a guy from your (new) neck of the woods was
pernouncin' it

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/