author: Robert Vienneau

subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
In article <[email]>, Albert Wagner
<[email]> wrote:

Temporally, an adult.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yes: go fuck yourself.
   -- Jason McCullough, 2/14/2003 (not on sci.econ)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sullivan, I'm sure you have better things to do than
behave like a petty little ass.

Or rather, I'm not sure about you, but I am sure about me. So
please forgive me if I am not going to play with you...
  -- Charles Utwatter I, 2/13/2003 (not on sci.econ)
--------------------------------------------------------------
I'll get right to it. I don't know who Patrick Sullivan is,
where he gets his information, whether he is a journalist
or just some right wing Nazi, but he is out of his mind.
  -- Jason Leopold, 11/30/02 (not on sci.econ)
--------------------------------------------------------------

By your response you demonstrate an astounding inability to read
nuance...

But I think we both know you passed the point of attempting serious
debate some time ago, in favour of sniping insults and out-of-context
quoting.
  -- Robin de la Motte, 10/22/01
--------------------------------------------------------------

...So what?  So, I don't think we serve pursuit of truth by sloppy
indictments of other thinkers or by papering over the differences
between different thinkers.  You blast Arthur (mistakenly, I believe)
for his supposed backpedaling.  Are you not now backpedaling
yourself?  If not, then where, oh where, does Arthur ever sign on
the 10-days business?

You say "But as for backpedaling in mid-stream I don't think I've ever
seen the like of this from Brian Arthur in the Pretext interview."  Then
you quote Arthur saying technology comes in waves, so that one is locked
in only until the "next wave" comes along.  Isn't this just ceteris
paribus?  Where is the backpedaling?

Anyway, I think backpedaling is undervalued.  If I state my case too
strongly or fall into error, would you deny me the right to modify my
position?  Or would you insist that I cry "uncle" and go over
completely to your position?

It's the spirit of combat that bugs me.  Can't we engage in a
conversation with other thinkers?  If it's a combat, then we want to
win.  I don't want to win; I want to edge closer to the truth.  In
the spirit of combat, as it appears to me, your last post actually
denied that the best technology is a member of the attactor set in
typical Polya urn models of technology choice. I'm sure you didn't
mean to say that.  After all, that would be a flat error in which
there can be no question of judgment, but only of whether one has
understood the model.  I'm sure your meaning was different.  But I
can't shake the impression that you made the remark because you were
animated by the spirit of combat.  That's the problem.

Yes, yes.  We all make our mistakes and so on.  I have certainly
been guilty of firing off heated emails that I later regretted...
  -- Roger Koppl (not on sci.econ), 7/24/2001

--------------------------------------------------------------

Patrick Susupply quotes stuff he doesn't understand.  So I guess
I'll have to repeat part of DeLong's quote.  You can take it from
there, Pat, though I doubt anyone really cares.  I sure don't.
  -- William Hummel, 11/9/1999

---------------------------------------------------------------

Patrick,

I'm sure that you won't believe me, but why don't you get
one of your economist friends to explain to you why David
and Arthur are fine economists and you are a rude ignorant
little boy who doesn't know what he's talking about.
  -- John Hillas, 10/9/1999

----------------------------------------------------------------

  It is really fascinating to have a look around some of the other
newsgroups. SUSUPPLY's conduct is in all probability an all time low.
The computer programming guys - although divided by ideological
differences about the merits of languages and paradigms and so forth
are civil, informative and a delight to read. The buddhists are
fascinating, and have genuine intellectual discussion with real respect
for each other. Only here does anyone put up with anything approaching
patrick's crap.

I wonder why people do.
   -- Lauchlan Mackinnon, 4/17/1999

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Schulman:

Patrick Sullivan:

[Entries from the "Patrick Sullivan Archive of Injuries Received from
the Richard Schulman" deleted]

Once again, P.S. proves his inability to understand underlying content
as opposed to literal surface. It is this intellectual flaw, more than
anything else, that makes most of his responses so immature and
pedantic.

There is nothing wrong with ad hominem comments when appropriate to
context. What is immature is an ad hominem response (and a false one,
at that) when a substantive reply is called for.

Of course, Sullivan, in his replies, omits the context that would make
his own ad hominem look so immature and evasive...

...That, of course, called for a substantive reply. Instead,
characteristically, Sullivan replied with an ad hominem falsehood
against myself.

It is this sort of behavior which is characteristic of the individual
I call "net trash."

Richard Schulman, 11/7/1998

----------------------------------------------------------------

Unlike Nettrash like yourself, I don't spend all day hovering over the
keyboard waiting to instantly post some banality in answer to an
opponent. The way I generally work is this: after eating dinner, I put
out the garbage. Then I answer yours...

Patrick Suppository:

It seems pretty squishy to me. I think you're straining too hard. Or
perhaps it's your diet. As they say in the computer field (of which
you are so ignorant, "GIGO!" (Garbage In, Garbage Out)

-- Richard Schulman, 11/5/1998

---------------------------------------------------------------

I intended my comments on auction markets for the economists
on the newsgroup, but this post offers--quite accidentally,
I'm sure--too good a question to ignore.

 Su> Second, ever notice those menus posted in the windows of
 Su> restaurants?
 Su> Those are offers...

...The menu with the seller's prices, as anyone with an IQ in
three digits can see...

-- Frank Palmer, 10/27/1998

---------------------------------------------------------------

Patrick, much as you fancy yourself some sort of sci.econ moderator, I
happen not to give a damn what you happen to think the point at issue
is. And if that's what you think the point at issue was, then your mind
is even littler than you've made evident so far...

Patrick, dear, I like a good round of insults as much as the next guy,
but your refusal to emply even a tiny bit of imagination in them really
doesn't make it worthwhile. Tata.

  -- Enrique Diaz-Alvarez, 6/22/1998

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let's all shave our heads, hold hands with Patrick, and recite his
mantra:

Hare krishna, hare krishna
government bad, markets good
hare, hare, krishna, krishna
markets good, markets good
krishna hare, krishna krishna
government bad, government bad
krishna, krishna, hare, hare

Repeat as necessary, until all our public health disasters, pollution
problems, and other such trifles disappear. In the unlikely case this
doesn't work, just move.

  -- Enrique Diaz-Alvarez, 6/19/1998

----------------------------------------------------------------

Look, Patrick, my dear haddock, this is the beach. The sea, without
which you will surely expire, is over there, past where Ben and Paraic
are kicking each other's sandcastles because Ben has the remarkably fine
aesthetic sense to despise the dreadful Visage and Paraic doesn't. Why
don't you get back in the water and swim off back to sci.econ and
whatever other noisome depths you usually inhabit?

Mike "wave goodbye" Holmans, 4/21/1998

----------------------------------------------------------------


author: susupply

subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
"Albert Wagner" <[email]>

as is his custom, coming up with a new story now that his old one is
discreditted

 wrote in message news:[email]...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:27:44 GMT
"susupply" <[email]> wrote:
<snip>

I haven't yet figured out how to cut from a paper book for pasting into
a mail composer.  I understand the book is in high demand.  You should
buy a copy.

And you haven't figured out how to do it from Keen's website either
apparently.  Which is passing odd, since you had no trouble cutting and
pasting the review excerpts Keen provided there.

Anyway, since Albert always requires spoon feeding, here is the kind of
thing I was asking him to produce:

http://www.debunking-economics.com/Extracts.htm#4

<< According to economists, monopolies are worse than the alternative of
competitive markets simply because the absence of competitors allows a
monopoly to set price above marginal cost. Perfectly competitive industries,
on the other hand, set price equal to marginal cost. Economists argue that
monopolies are therefore necessarily bad, and that small, competitive firms
are necessarily good, because monopolies produce a lower output for a higher
price, thus restricting the supply of their products and exploiting
consumers by over-pricing. However, the 'proof' of this argument makes the
fundamental mathematical mistake of equating a very small quantity to zero.
When this mistake is corrected, the economic argument against monopolies
collapses, as does the economic theory of competition...>>

Putting aside that the above is laughable (and one of the points Chris Auld
hilariously demolished on the Hayek-L discussion), would that have been so
difficult?  Especially for a guy who fancies himself among the smartest 2%
of the population?


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
"Albert Wagner" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

All of which Albert Wagner had to snip because he couldn't answer
substantively. Iow, he is again proving that my description of HIS "process"
is accurate.


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
"Albert Wagner" <[email]>

who recently conceded he had absolutely zero credentials to establish him as
an critic of anyone's economic analysis,

 wrote in message news:[email]...

I thought you were an English major.  They didn't even teach you to cut and
paste?

You may not know much about economics, but you know what you like?

That would not be an opinion shared by anyone with a smidgen of knowledge of
economics.

Since Keen himself had to admit to Chris Auld he was wrong about economists
use of dynamic models, and that the math in his book was also in error in
crucial places, I'd say it flew like an F-15 with a smart bomb.

See for yourself:

http://jerry.ss.ucalgary.ca/debunk.pdf


author: Grinch

subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 08:11:33 -0600, Albert Wagner <[email]>
wrote:

Congratulations, Albert, you are talented at something.  Whenever an
econ question arises you consistently manage to avoid linking to every
economist and econ organization in the world -- and there are so many
of them! -- in your answer.

Here you go back eight years to link to an article people have been
laughing at all that time -- written by a couple San Francisco
activist/journalits with no knowledge of econ at all who proposed an
"improved" measure of GDP that would more accurately measure "welfare"
(just as if GDP was supposed to do that!)  by *subtracting* from it
things like the costs of repairs and medical care.  Since broken
things and poor health are 'badnesses'. ;-)

Just *remember that* when your roof starts leaking or you have a heart
attack and the medics arrive to save your life. Keeping the water off
your head, or saving your life, will be a *loss* to society!

I'm not sure Google is *your* friend when it keeps directing you to
"authorities" on economics like that alcoholic who short himself in a
bathroom stall while stalking, and this.

It looks more like Google is trying to do you in.  Beware!

Your friend,  Patrick.

;-)


author: James Dow Allen

subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
Grinch <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

I'm glad my question got responses.  Unfortunately none answered my
questions.

Did I come across as particularly stupid?  FWIW I got A+
in college econ, though that was many decades ago.

Is there a forum where people will actually
answer simple econ questions?

James


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
"Albert Wagner" <[email]>

whose new best friend is the word, "neoclassical",

 wrote in message news:[email]...

Well, yes, one does have to have enough knowledge to get the joke.

Would the erudite Mr. Wagner care to list those "lies", as well as the
"scientific and mathematical proof"?

Starvation and exposure to the elements are "bad" also.  Should we subtract
any and all efforts to produce food, clothing, and shelter from GDP?

[snip]

Even if he had none, this would be worthy of one of Chris Auld's; Pot,
Kettle, Black Awards.


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
"Albert Wagner" <[email]>

or one of them, recently claimed of himself and his intellectual peer, Roy:

Yet, in response to a request  that he do just that,

 wrote in message news:[email]...

No, no.  I asked YOU to list "lies" and what YOU believe the "scientific and
mathematical proof" is that established them as lies.  Whatsamatta, you fail
English and Composition?

I did NOT ask you for the name of a notorious crackpot--who by the way, has
had his inanities humiliatingly demolished by sci.econ's own Chris Auld.


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
"Robert Vienneau" <[email]>

recently heard from on sci.econ declaring:

[snip]

[snip]

 wrote in message news:[email]...

Which I think conclusively answers Vienneau's question:

And, if not, the rest of this meticulously detailed post surely does:

or
wealth
discussed by
highly
of


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
In article <[email]>,
[email] wrote:

James Glass is ignorant and unable to fashion a valid argument.
His ad hominem is a fallacy.

James Tobin and Bill Nordhaus - actual economists and all - constructed,
in 1971, a Measure of Economic Welfare (MEW). And they contrasted it
with the conventional measure of economic activity, GNP. Tobin and
Nordhaus were addressing some of the issues that Albert Wagner brings
up. And other economists have discussed these sorts of ideas.

I think what economists happened to have included in GNP and what they
excluded when they set up national income accounting have had profound
effects on the discussion of economics, popular and otherwise, ever
since.

Scaife's role in politics in the U.S.A. is quite curious. And Steve
Kangas's death is strange, however you look at it.


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:16:46 GMT, Grinch <[email]>
wrote:

Parroting the standard line takes no brains.  Understanding it does.

But that is not what Albert posted, is it, Grinch?  You are attempting
to put over a strawman fallacy, here.  Is there even one sentence
_in_the_exerpt_Albert_actually_posted_ that you claim is false?

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
On 17 Dec 2003 04:46:42 -0800, [email] (James Dow Allen)
wrote:

Stupid?  No. Ignorant about econ basics, yes.

Well, you certainly came across as someone who never took college econ
and got  A+ in it to boot, being that you conflate such things and
don't remember the answers to such simple questions.

There is the Bureau of Economic Analysis web site, and as an A+ econ
student you'd know how to follow the link provided for you to it,
right?

And you'd want your answers from the authoritative source, rather than
from who knows what kind of usenet loon, right?

If you can't follow a link to BEA, or prefer to be taught by the
random usenet loon because it's easier that way, then we'll be
considering "stupid".


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
In article <[email]>,
[email] (James Dow Allen) wrote:

Well, you now have more responses.

I took your original post as suggesting you hadn't quite managed
to totally articulate your question, but wanted comments on certain
themes.

I think it false to assume that there is something out there called
"economic activty" that exists independent of how we measure it or
of the discourses in which we use those measurements.

And I think that if you were to look at the details of the
definitions - although it's been some time since I did that -
you can find plenty of places where ambiguities have to be
resolved by some sort of convention.

For example, one might define income as what can one can consume
without eating into one's capital stock. If one expects the
value of one's capital to go up, then one can consume more
immediately. Increased expected future capital gains imply one's
current income is higher. But then different people could then have
different perceptions of their income. Would it make sense to
aggregate income across individuals when these individuals do
not agree on their beliefs?

And difficulties arise with respect to depreciation, technical
change, etc. (This all gets to why it is GDP, not NDP.) So
national accounting contains many conventions to handle such
details.

Going further afield, I have a book on my shelf where some
Marxists tried to use national income statistics to examine
Marxist theories. They found that the categories had to be
mapped into another set for their theories to be examined.
This gets into assigning "value added" to activities. If
a different set of concerns had been commonplace when the
national income statistics were set up, perhaps they would be
quite different.

I have even read a paper on "feminist accounting".

You see that authoritarian bullies actually try to prevent
discussion of economics in this forum. Curious.


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
In article <FmkEb.3713$[email]>,
"susupply" <[email]> wrote:

Ad hominem is a fallacy.

Ad hominem is a fallacy.

The stupid one was moaning about a cite.

Newcomers might wonder who poor Chris Auld is that nettrash should
drag his name in. I think the following shows something about why
a stupid liar might cite him:

====================================================================
"My sentence above does not contain a complaint, it contains merely the
observation on my part of the assumption of priestly authority on your
part, which is amply demonstrated by the tone of your postings.  If
you take my observation to be itself an insult, so be it.  That's the
point of Keen's book, isn't it?  Except that Keen's point makes the
more general case, against "most economists" in THEIR assumption of
priestly authority."
  -- Bill Ryan, 25 March 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Ryan <[email]> wrote:

Does everyone else enjoy the "merely" as much as I do?

Bill's excuse for writing a sequence of offensive, zero-
content posts is that Steve Keen is offensive.  Indeed,
that is "the point of Keen's book."
  -- Poor Chris Auld, 25 March 2003
====================================================================
I think it's pretty clear that he did -- and congratulations to you,
Tim, on your part in exposing the creep.

The interesting bit of by-play in all of this is the tendency of some
gun nuts to say Hey, Lott is just the victim of lefties trying to get
back at us for the Bellesiles affair.

Me, I'm one lefty that's covered: I sent Clayton Cramer a
congratulations and Bellesiles-should-be-boiled-in-oil note at the time
of *his* good work.
  -- David Lloyd-Jones, 17 January 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, DLJ's opinion of Lott's  work is essentially religious in nature.
For example, DLJ's first comment on the matter is plainly political:

 The interesting bit of by-play in all of this is the tendency of some
 gun nuts to say Hey, Lott is just the victim of lefties trying to get
 back at us for the Bellesiles affair.

 Me, I'm one lefty that's covered:

The stage is clear: It's not statisticians discussing the
properties of multivariate models of the determinants of
crime, it's "gun nuts" versus "lefties."  Again there are
no greys, only black and white political camps.  One need
only figure out which political camp one belongs to to know
which of two possible opinions of Lott's book one ought to
take.
   -- Poor Chris Auld, 24 February 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------
  o Does David Lloyd-Jones say he is covered by the charactization
    of "lefties trying to get back at [gun nuts] for the Bellesiles
    affair"?

  o Does poor Chris Auld's editing ambiguate this question of whether
    David Lloyd-Jones sees the world as properly described by the
    dichotomy of the two groups identified in his text?
      -- Robert Vienneau
=====================================================================
CA> This accusation is incorrect.

TL> You are mistaken.  The graphs are labelled as Ehrlich says,

CA> The accusation was that Lott deliberately misleads
CA> the reader.

TL> No the accusation was that Lott misleads the reader.  The
TL> "deliberately" part was your addition.
   -- Poor Chris Auld and Tim Lambert, 20 January 2003
=====================================================================
CA3> Not that it should be confusing in context
CA3> even if he hadn't.  I really don't find "but laymen might
CA3> get confused by this!" to be a particularly compelling argument
CA3> against Lott's results.

TL2> Laymen are (not might be) misled by his graphs.  That's not an
TL2> argument against his results.  The argument against his results is
TL2> that Lott is misled by his own graphs.

CA1> I think you have said repeatedly (after Ehrlich) that Lott's
CA1> graphs are misleading, and repeatedly given the example of
CA1> someone on usenet who was mislead.

TL0> Correct.

CA1>  I think it disingenuous
CA1> to claim you never said that when it's pointed out it isn't
CA1> a remotely compelling argument.

TL0> Bizarre.  My paragraph you are responding to states that the graphs
TL0> are misleading *and* that Lott was misled by them.  How do manage to
TL0> read it as some sort of denial that I ever made the statements that
TL0> are contained in that paragraph?
   -- Poor Chris Auld and Tim Lambert, 12 February 2003
=====================================================================

CA> I think John Lott made a mistake in his assertion about correlations.
CA> I don't think this mistake ought to be repeated ad infinitum and
CA> brandished as "evidence of incompetence."

TL> I posted it ONCE because I believe it shows him making the same
TL> conceptual error as in his argument about when the declines started.

CA> You posted it several times, and not for the valid reason
CA> of attempting to show an error in reasoning related to the
CA> discussion but rather as an attempt to discredit Lott
CA> personally ("evidence of incompetence").

TL> It is easy to check via Google and see that you are wrong.  What is
TL> your excuse for making such a false claim?

CA> Google says I should have said, "Your exchange with Lott
CA> was posted several times, and you repeated it."  It was
CA> previously posted, as you know, by someone else.

TL> You didn't answer my question.  You claimed I posted it several
TL> times, I corrected you, and [you] repeated the false claim instead
TL> of checking whether it was true.  What is your excuse for your
TL> behaviour?

CA> If you read carefully, Tim, you'll find I did answer your (rude)
CA> question: I corrected myself.  Someone else quoted you before, and
CA> you then proceeded to quote the same passage again.  My point is
CA> substantively unaltered.

TL> You did not answer my question.  Why did you repeat your false
TL> claim after I corrected you?

CA> I did answer your question.  But you snipped mine for some
CA> reason: Why did you quote that exchange again after it had
CA> already been quoted and discussed in thread?
   -- Poor Chris Auld and Tim Lambert, around 26 February 2003


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
"Robert Vienneau" <[email]>

or perhaps, the New Improved Updated Robert Vienneau,

wrote in message news:[email]...

Speaking of fallacies, Albert Wagner didn't link to Tobin, Nordhaus, or any
other credentialed economist.  He linked to an article from a notoriously
cranky magazine (the latest developments of Lisztian Trade Authority).
Which is what Grinch responded to.

But, I'm glad you've found another nutcase to take under your wing since Dr.
Food and Lauchlan have deserted you.


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
"Robert Vienneau" <[email]>

still as self aware as a day old loaf of bread,

 wrote in message news:[email]...

Tell it to your new boy toy.  He's the one who originated the phrase, "fail
English and Composition", on this newsgroup.

The stupid one was the guy who responded with "Steve Keen" in place of an
answer to my question.

You left out the hilarious error Keen made regarding Nash Equilibrium.


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
In article <mo_Db.2641$[email]>,
"susupply" <[email]> wrote:

I don't know why Patrick Sullivan thinks I want "to take [him]
under [my] wing".


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
"Robert Vienneau" <[email]>

perhaps being tutored in English by sci.econ's leading expert,

 wrote in message news:[email]...

Who said anything about "want"?  I'm merely describing your history here.


author: Jerry Kraus

subject: The real obstacles to controlled nuclear fusion

text:
While the technical difficulties involved in developing controlled
nuclear fusion are indeed quite considerable -- thousands of micro-
lasers aimed at a focal point, extreme dangers of massive explosions,
calculating the arrangement so more energy is always produced than is
consumed -- these pale beside the other, more formidable obstacles.
These are economic and political.

1.  Economic:  fundamental new technologies don't make money for the
inventors.  The money invested is quite literally down the drain,
because new technologies are, effectively, just ideas, and cannot be
controlled with patent protection.  Ideas cannot be patented, only
quite specific designs.  So, with a fundamentally new technology such
as controlled nuclear fusion, copycat inventors could simply slightly
modify the design to achieve the same effect.  Capitalism fails in
developing new technologies.  That's why the products of Ford, GM,
Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, IBM  never get better, and often get worse.
They don't care about technical progress, just money.

2. Political.  Free energy, unlimited energy, would very much upset
the apple cart.  It would rock the boat, quite a bit.  The rich people
in the boat don't like that.  The powerful people in the boat don't
like that.  They might end up getting thrown out of the boat.   True
progress is never popular with those in positions of power.


author: gabydewilde

subject: Re: The real obstacles to controlled nuclear fusion

text:
On Nov 25, 5:12 pm, LauraM <[email]> wrote:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Cold-Fusion-20-years-late-by-Ludwik-Kowalski-081130-995.html
"How many are aware that "nuclear cold fusion"- is still an active
research field? The initial 1989 claim, made by Fleischmann and Pons,
was that a new kind of nuclear reactions can result from a chemical
process, such as electrolysis. This claim has been rejected by most
scientists but a group of over 100 researchers, from several
countries, continues to report puzzling effects (1). They meet each
year and share results of ongoing investigations. The next
International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF15) will be in Rome (2).
A small sample of a current debate (among CF researchers) can be seen
at my own website devoted to cold fusion (3). As a nuclear physicist,
I was highly excited by CF reports in 1989 and 1990. "


text:
On Dec 1, 11:41 pm, doug <[email]> wrote:

LOL, dougma said some-one-else was quote: "only blustering".

That is the funniest thing I hear all 5 min.


text:
On Nov 25, 5:08 pm, Jerry Kraus <[email]> wrote:

nah, big budget projects are just not aimed towards results. They aim
for budget. Results are quite harmful. You should look for people who
are working with small budgets without dougma idiots around them.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bs-Uk511S_I#1m50s

See? No adress, no name, no one to kill, just one more demonstration
of something we already know. Time for the kids to scream about your
neoconversation of energy again. boo whooo ? yes? go fher it
hatemongers. Give her you best cock slap.

_______
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress


author: Publius

text:
Jerry Kraus <[email]> wrote in news:b73f92b5-45dc-4be6-9364-
[email]:

That's the funniest thing I've heard this week.

That's the next funniest thing.

LOL!


text:
On Nov 30, 3:27 pm, John J <[email]> wrote:

Pot/Kettle.


text:
On Dec 1, 2:40 am, Publius <[email]> wrote:

Did you say something?


text:
On Dec 1, 11:26 am, doug <[email]> wrote:

I didn't say I'd done it.  I said it could be done.  Along the lines
described in the initial posting.

Although, I wouldn't expect you to be capable of understanding such
subtle distinctions.


text:
On Nov 30, 2:48 pm, John J <[email]> wrote:

10 million on the table, John.  Let's see it.  Then you'll be calling
my bluff.


text:
On Nov 30, 3:04 pm, doug <[email]> wrote:

The initial posting tells you how to do it.


author: Bret Cahill

text:
Despotism certainly retards progress in general but it isn't as simple
or as specific as some suggest.

The Europeans have a political approach that is different enough to
eliminate fundamentalism, yet they haven't had any better luck with
fusion than the U. S.

Bret Cahill


text:
On Nov 30, 6:54 pm, Bret Cahill <[email]> wrote:

Not at all,

The students here are brain washed and scrubbed.

I told a nuclear physicist one could transmuted radioactive waste with
an oxyhydrogen flame.

He started screaming like a little baby.

The discussion ended with me telling him that making an electrolyzer
shouldn't be that difficult for some one as skooled and equipped as
him.

He could do it in his lunch break if he wanted to know about it.

I presented him with papers, videos, I even illustrated how the US DOE
invented all kinds of creative excuses to eventually (3 months later)
claim they didn't see the experiment. "What experiment? huh?"

He was very "oh, that is perpetual motion thinking" and abundantly
lawyering the physics. Like opinion lives up to defeat documentation.
For an experiment that costs 5 bucks and 10 min.

Today there are lots of transmutation studies, I'm not much of a fan
of reading them. repeating the obvious is well... obvious?

http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/Yull-Brown/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/9

China on the other hand....

Lets compare, a good Western scientists costs a million per year. In
China they have multiple studies and cost 3$ per day. So that will buy
you 1000 scientists for the price of one.

The math is simple enough. 10 multilingual rocket scientists for the
price of 1 cleaning lady.

Until we manage to separate food, housing, pensions and health care
from labor we are pretty much fucked.

For as long as necessary goods are monopolised by money grabbers you
are going to pay though the nose for everything thus you demand a good
income. Thus the work you can do is limited to things that pay off
immediately. Why work at your future if you can grab people by their
money - kind of reasoning.

I live on social support because there are minimum wages. Crushed into
the corner as if I'm the idiot. I'm not convinced but hey, it would be
rude if I didn't try to live up to the expectations right? HAHAHAHAHA

I sit here all year surfing the Internet, I probably haven't figured
out anything by now.

I've invented so much things I've forgotten about 80% of them.

I knwo you are all craving to debunk them but it's not important.

This stuff is 240 year old.

http://www.cityofholland.com/Brix?pageID=111

Is it not pretty? You can live in those, run a company from it.

Here is just a random picture of a 100 year old Fresnel lens.

http://www.racepointlighthouse.net/Pages/History.html

You are not about to convince me solar energy is to expensive.

Oh, yeah sure they are pretending to be researching Fusion all over
the globe.

Or perhaps all this money is wasted on mortgages, food, energy bills
the study and housing for the kids, the worthless pension plan and
other money grabbing schemes.

Yeah, I think this ransome scheme is what people call fusion research.

The good science nowadays comes from peoples garage!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elh8RP4d4Z0&feature=PlayList&p=703453F130029486&index=0&playnext=1

People who bother to look at the technologies that got killed 10 times
in a row.

They missed one, Yull Brown also made water turn into plasma using a
spark plug but you can only buy the video footage of that.

If anyone posts it on youtube the money grabbers show up to claim
their copy right.

Planet clown, that's what we should call it. Circus Terra. physics
stands for juggling with numbers. They build human piramids then piss
on the lesser clowns.

You want to invent free energy again? Are you to be taken seriously?
Again you say? What about the previous 200 times?

That windmill in the picture has been running for 240 years.

Pretty lousy investment if you ask me... .hahahaha....

but if those big towers scare you why not use work animals? You know?
Cows?

Have any idea how many millions of cows we have? They produce C02 like
shit so there has to be some power in each cow?

Push a generator? You know like in Conan the barbarian? It worked for
millions of years? no?

You didn't think the Egyptards seriously pulled those rocks by hand
did you? And look at their empire now? What did the Romans do exactly?
The Greeks? The Sumerians? They killed themselves over trivial
subjects? Must be the nature of the creature right?

I think their clowns act jsut wasn't funny enough, yeah.... that was
probably it.... hahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

What about hemp? I think hemp was most likely the reason people
stopped living in trees. Served us well for millions of years.

What made you so special if I may ask?

If I'm the idiot clown here, where does that leave all of you?

I bet we are the show of the galaxy here in Circus Terra.

How did you enjoy my act?

Did I type it out well?

I know I'm not really a Ronald McDonald but I'm still learning.

I bet I'm way more funny than you.

____
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2


text:
On Nov 29, 5:38 pm, John J <[email]> wrote:

Because the average physicist is just as stupid and arrogant as you
are, John.  And just as indifferent to anything other than their own
ego and self-interest.

A working fusion reactor could be built for a total investment of
roughly 10 million U.S. dollars.


author: Edward Green

text:
On Nov 25, 11:08 am, Jerry Kraus <[email]> wrote:

I have some experience here, and the scope of "ideas" which can be
patented my surprise you.

Last time I checked, in the US, an "idea" could only be in the public
domain 1 year before the right to file for a patent disappears.  OTOH,
the "ideas", amazingly, don't have to work, so somebody _could_ have
possibly filed a patent as broad as "confined fusion" or "laser
confined fusion" and obtained a grant. OYTOH, the maximum term of
patents, with renewals, was (last I heard) twenty years.  So most of
the obvious "ideas" about controlled fusion (abbreviated "confusion")
must be in the public domain by now, period.

What could be patented now is a fundamentally new step/process/idea
which made the damn thing workable.

Of course they care about money.  They are businesses.  Unfettered
business does not necessarily lead to technical progress.  Somewhat
fettered business often does.  I would say you have examples on both
sides of the fence there -- IBM is building better, faster and cheaper
computers every year, just like everybody else.  MS is building more
and more bloated OS's.  They are, of course, a virtual monopoly, worse
than Standard Oil.

I'm not that paranoid.  And even controlled fusion would not be
"free".  There would still be a plant and infrastructure to maintain.
And it looks like the "plant" would, at least initially, be very
expensive.  Today, of course, it is still utter vaporware.


text:
On Nov 27, 1:32 pm, Mason C <[email]> wrote:

I'm not aware of any law of physics saying or implying that nuclear
fusion will never be a useful source of energy.

Even if they're were such a law, it might well be wrong.

I generally assume that things are possible, particularly if closely
related technologies like fusion bombs are possible.


text:
On Nov 29, 2:42 pm, Mason C <[email]> wrote:

Why?


text:
On Nov 29, 10:04 pm, Jerry Kraus <[email]> wrote:

Because they have a lot of funding and this will all disapear when
they disclose the answers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZDeJrFxd3E
"Scientists from around the world gathered at MIT in 2007 to present
their findings in the field of Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions,
a.k.a cold fusion. "

The real scientists say: THE RESEARCH PRESENTED WAS STUNNING

Only the fundies will tell you "only a speculation", "not yet in
sight", "not at the end of the tunnel", "I'm an ignorant fart who
spews lies for a living" and "you should watch moar fux news"

Their behaviour is well documented.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/08/27/national/a140220D17.DTL&feed=rss.business
" Rusi Taleyarkhan made headlines in 2002 when he published a paper in
the journal Science claiming that he had produced nuclear fusion [...]
Taleyarkhan was denied an appeal and stripped of his named
professorship by a university committee. "

http://newenergytimes.com/blog/?p=38
"investigation committee reviewing allegations against Taleyarkhan had
fabricated its own allegations, in violation of a previous policy on
research misconduct."

See the dirty details hear:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTBSp1QvCuw&feature=PlayList&p=9145055D2093A2C0&index=0&playnext=1

and hear:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3436830/COLD-FUSION-a-Lecture-for-the-Class

And they killed Malove to close the lid on the fusion.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEfirefromic.pdf

But it's not gone just jet.
http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html

We merely need to clean out the petrowarmonger scum.

___________
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2


text:
On Nov 28, 2:40 pm, Mason C <[email]> wrote:

   Everything that the Washingoon bozons never thunk is still around.
   That's computers, robots, drones, fiber optics, HDTV, CD, DVD,
GPS, Pv Cells,
   and neo Solar and, neo Wind Energy are also such good energy
sources.


text:
On Nov 28, 8:40 pm, Mason C <[email]> wrote:

I wouldn't say it is still around,

but it still works if that is what you mean.

Clean water, clean energy, cheap products,

oh it represents everything Warsington doesn't want you to have.

How funny is that?

haha??

You will have the Ameroes soon. Free money for the unlimited printing
for free! But only for the bankers of course. You have a bit of a
catch there... For you they have petroleum wars scheduled. A war
against China and Russia at the same time. Finally a worthy opponent
who nukes back! Finally a real war! This is what Americans always
wanted it seems. I doubt Europe will support your bankers in this
effort. Then again Europe can be nuked in 5 min by our Russian
neighbors if we did. You and your petroleum warmongers on the other
hand will all die. There can be little doubt about that. It's a sad
story.

But you didn't want cold fusion, it was one of those occasions you
allowed your gov to grasp your freedom straight out of your hands.
Like taking candy from a baby. Your government chose to devote your
time to terrorising the planet in stead.

Turn you into a bunch of haters.

Pretty sick shit.

_______
http://knol.google.com/k///1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2


text:
On Nov 28, 4:09 am, Mason C <[email]> wrote:

Oh, but it's been done hundreds of times in laboratories and there are
plenty of people using it already.

Ignorance is not knowledge.

You can chant your mantra but it doesn't become more credible.

The opposite is true.

The more you lie about cold fusion the more obvious the lies become.


author: Desertphile

text:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:08:31 -0800 (PST), Jerry Kraus
<[email]> wrote:

Fusion does not produce energy: it releases it.

There is no such thing as "free energy."


text:
On Nov 26, 3:48 pm, Desertphile <[email]>
wrote:

Everything's relative.  I've no doubt there are people who are dumber
and more arrogant than you are.


text:
On Nov 26, 11:03 am, Puppet_Sock <[email]> wrote:

So, you're admitting it's your fault?


author: ZerkonXXXX

text:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:08:31 -0800, Jerry Kraus wrote:

Well before an economic consideration of a new or existing forms of
energy can be made, real costs must first be recognized.

The real cost of oil, for instance, is not confined to the barrel or pump.
It is understandable why the price of oil, as an example, is constantly
being defined in such narrow terms. Anyone stepping off of this
simplistic platform is immediately placed inside of world politics and
the world economic. The very fact that this is not done is costing real
dollars and cents.


text:
On Nov 25, 4:06 pm, alexy <[email]> wrote:

Excellent point.

- Bell Laboratories effectively was not operating as a Capitalist
Corporation when they developed the transistor.  No attempt was made
to enforce the patent.

- The Soviet Union beat out the U.S. in the space race until the U.S.
Federal Government committed to massive investments in space
technology.


text:
On Nov 25, 5:22 pm, Benj <[email]> wrote:
[snip]
[snips]

When I dream, I have a pony. Psychotic pipe dreams are not
evidence of anything except possibly your mental state.

[snips]

Because I have three university degrees in physics, and eighteen years
experience in the nuclear industry.

And you are a git.
Socks


author: Benj

text:
On Nov 25, 11:26 am, Bert Hyman <[email]> wrote:

Here's a concept that you won't believe is even possible, yet I tell
you one day the earth will use this system. And that would be a social
system based on love. A system with NO money at all!  When everybody
only desires to serve, there is no longer any reason to use money to
"keep score".  It won't be that distribution of resources will be
unlimited and unregulated, they will. But it will be regulation by
means of a feedback system designed to produce the regulation that
capitalism presently provides. In other words now, a great need raises
the price of an object which induces it's greater production. In the
new system the same feedback is needed but without money a computer
network to replace the functions of greed will have to be devised!

And a word or two about money. Most people regard money as wealth. We
think the "rich people" who have a lot of money are "wealthy". Nothing
could be further from the truth!  Money is the OPPOSITE of wealth!!!
Wealth is objects of intrinsic value to the rest of mankind: Gold,
cars, houses, box of tomatoes, you name it. Money is just a piece of
paper with a promise to pay later written on it!  If the promise is
never kept, all you have is paper.

And not only that, think of all the time and effort that mankind all
over the earth wastes keeping track of money!  We have banks and
accountants and paper-shufflers and government bureaucrats and even
time WE spend filing taxes and keeping records etc. Eliminate money
and you eliminate all that wasted time and effort. This allows much
more time for mankind to be creative rather than to spend days in toil
trying to get enough of whatever you think you need to live.

This is a VERY radical and It probably can't work until this planet
gets a REAL good housecleaning. But in the end it or something like it
WILL work. We simply can't continue this house of cards much longer.
Think about it.


text:
On Nov 25, 11:40 am, Puppet_Sock <[email]> wrote:

So you know exactly how a viable fusion plant needs to be built?
Please explain where you got this knowledge and post your plans for
the plant!  Fact is you a are moron as are most people when trying to
predict "future technology".  So what if, say, I invent a box, um
maybe about the size of a dehumidifier, that puts out enough power to
run the normal house, or maybe including enough to heat it in winter.
It runs without fuel for 100 years, costs about the same as your
furnace, and needs no maintenance during that time.  This is WAY far
away from your so-called "necessary" design. And I might mention,
eliminates all wires, substations, central plants and other
infrastructure.  There still may be a guy with a tool belt, but the
system will be NOTHING like what you propose.

So why are you "more right" than I am?  Only because you are so
arrogant as to think all your ideas are the only possible correct
ones. Do I have to send Uncle Al after you?


author: Lawyerkill

text:
On Nov 25, 11:12�am, LauraM <[email]> wrote:

The Internet is the root of all evil


author: Tron

text:
"Jerry Kraus" <[email]> skrev i melding
news:[email]...
"The first thing Archimedes did upon having discovered his famous axiom, was
to sacrifice a bull to the Gods.  Ever since, oxen have had an inbred
mistrust of progress."
(Heinrich Heine, IIRC, and very inaccurately quoted, too.)

T


text:
i LOVE money..
i think money is everything in this world..
it can also buy happiness..
yeah its true that we are own worst enemy if we cannot control
ourselves than it will be disaster..

xoxo,
aineecumi

neway, my secret to release tension is playing this game  http://www.gamestotal.com     http://uc.gamestotal.com   http://gc.gamestotal.com   http://3700ad.gamestotal.com
 http://manga.gamestotal.com


text:
On Nov 25, 7:55 pm, "Androcles" <[email]> wrote:

  Well, that's obvious. Since the ONLY industry, that EVER presumed
  that *TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS* DEPENDS on entirely  *AUTOMOTIVE
PROGESS*.
  is GM RETARDS.  Which is why Post Ford Batteries,  RISC,  Pv Cells,
  Microcomputers, C++, Acme Fiber Optics, Acme Digital Terrain
Mapping,
  On-Line Banking, Electronic Publishing, On-Line-Publishing, Post
McDonald's Holograms,
  CD+rw, DVD-rom, DVD-ram, HDTV,  USB,  XML, GPS, AAVs, AUVs,
  and Acme Cruise Missiles were also invented for the McDonald's
Bozos.


text:
On Nov 25, 7:58 pm, "[email]" <[email]> wrote:

   Well, you can have it all then. Since there is no such thing as
   money in this moronic world. There are imbeciles with coal mines.
   And then there are people with  A.I.//,  Optical Computers, laser-
beams,
   Microwave Channels, fiber optics, robotics, holograms, neo wind
energy,
   non-negative fluidity differentials,, On-Line-Publishing, Drones,
AUVs, and CD++.


author: Rod Speed

text:
Jerry Kraus <[email]> wrote

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont have a fucking clue about what fusion is actually about.

We'll see...

Pig ignorant lie. Fission did. In fact saved a hell of a lot of money for its inventor and lives in spades.

Plenty of other fundamental new technologys have too.

They dont necessarily have to be to make money for the inventors when they have the jump on the opposition.

In spades with fission.

Doesnt mean that money cant be made from fundamental new technologys.

Didnt prevent considerable money being made from plenty of fundamental new technologys.

Wrong, as always. And socialism hasnt developed even a single new technology, ever, anyway.

Mindlessly silly. All of Microsoft, Google, IBM got heaps better than what had been seen before.

Even more mindlessly silly. That isnt anything like true with hybrid cars for example, or even cellphones.

That can however still produced plenty of technical progress anyway.

Stiff shit for those currently involved in producing energy.

They're always completely irrelevant to any fundamental new technology.

They get to like it or lump it, just like they had to do with fusion, the
PC, the net, the car, planes, TV, radio, movies, music, etc etc etc.

Doesnt matter what they like, they get to like it or lump it with any fundamental new technology.

Their problem.

Their problem. Fundamental new technology happens anyway.


text:
On Nov 26, 5:43 am, "Rod Speed" <[email]> wrote:

It's like geothermal only with more hocus pocus and men in long white
coats earning 6 figure incomes without producing anything.

Yes you are.

Buy 3 widgets for the price of 2!

Such ass?

Yes they do.

Yeah, but after economic collapse by lack of applied science and sheer
ignorance the money isn't going to be worth anything darling.

Money money money.

It's just coupons representing debt you know?

Debt owed by dead people.

You don't have a clue about business.

You think the free market is all about ethics and humane behaviour.

Like a child.

Everything else was killed, we had much better, I could make
everything better on my own.

Like you would use my search engine? haha?
Like you would use my operating system? haha?
Like brainwashed you would use my computers? haha?

Like a rabbit vs T-rex.

Of course Ford, GM, Microsoft, Google and IBM have much better stuff
than I could make. It sits on shelves.

Look how you conveniently left out Ford and GM in your response.

hahahaha

Henry Ford the Illuminati Nazi grew cars from the soil. He made the
car out of VASTLY superior bio-plastics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rgDyEO_8cI

You cant lie your way out of it.

Those cars got shelves and it looks like Ford, GM and Chrysler are
going to close the shop BEFORE applying their proprietary technology.
They have thousands of employees sitting at home to protect their
intellectual property!

It is actually killing them!

A steam/petroleum hybrid could have been produced 50 years ago.

In 1800 we had electric cars. AND civilians owned airships.

Where is your tech now? All sponged up by the dinosaurs.

Bullshit, it is all nonsense.

They radiate your house with mobile phones and you actually get to pay
for it.

Ever inch of wire in the fixed phone network have been paid for
several trillion times.

It costs like 10 cent per meter and people pay hundreds upon hundreds
per month for it.

It is more expensive than electricity in some places!

For a bit of wire?

Nothing high tech about it.

Kids get to pay to talk to their mum and it's more expensive than ever
before.

yeah...

hahahahaha

Yeah, if one of your child slaves would have a brilliant idea during
one of her 36 shifts money isn't an issue.

Hollywood, Tee Vee and Music are fundamental technology in your view.
That's just silly man. It's called monopoly, it doesn't have anything
to do with tech. Honestly.

Sell songs from dead people tech.

Lets have an example with this.

Putin is building a reactor in Iran right? You knwo this? I see the US
news stations conveniently dub this into "supporting the Iranian
nuclear program". Putin's speech on how every country had a right to
produce energy was conveniently cut off. He even mentioned the US army
being in a laughable state. If he wants to put a reactor there we have
no way of stopping him. But this is not at all what the rich are
showing us on Tee Vee. They are more than willing to sacrifice the
whole US to protect their assets.

And they can!

You suggested lone inventors or small laboratories can invade their
market with new energy technology.

This just isn't the truth I'm afraid. Sorry to bring the bad news...

Yeah, but they control everything you know so we will end up doing
everything you can to protect them. Including dieing for it.

Not at all, it never happens.

You have been indoctrinated to scream hoax until it leaves the stage.

The numbers of scientific breakthroughs that didn't make it is
astronomical.

All kinds of stuff we really need.

Fresnel lived in 1700.

Where are the solar heaters?

It costs the same to make those as it costs to make a window.

The fusion reactor sits up there in the sky.

This is the current state of the tech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qn2u5m0o1Y

You don't have to tell me this "made it anyway".

It's 300 years old and it definitely didn't make it.

This is how you build a windmill.

http://www.cityofholland.com/Brix?pageID=111

It is 240 years old and it still works.

It was good enough back then, why is it not good enough today?

Can you think of one excuse why we cant build houses like this?

It seems to pay for it self.

At least it did 250 years ago.

Today we can build those out of stone and aim them automatically.

Like those fully automated sailboats.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/browse_frm/thread/a1945e5cfd45dc9?ie=UTF-8

Here you have 500 fuel vaporizers.

You don't have to pretend we are using those.

oxyhydrogen fuel enhancement is a perfectly simpleton technology.

More oxygen = better combustion.

Here is a very simple straight forward method.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h_hdBY5Ctg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOozaNPvfTA

It's not on the market, you have to build it yourself.

Could try say it is a hoax but it has zero emission. There are way
over a million people who build one. But it didn't make it into any
production car. Well... there is ONE company using the tech.

http://www.ronnmotors.com/cms/

They use it because it makes their hand build race monsters even
faster. ROFL Anyway, I could go on all day like this. The point is
obvious, the tech doesn't make it at all. It never makes it, not even
a little bit.

It's been killed over and over again.

Take this one last example. They talk a lot, it doesn't seem very
credible BUT. They run the engine on battery 1 for 11 hours while
charging battery 2. Then they run the engine on battery 2 for 55 hours
charging battery 3

It are brand new batteries - no it doesn't add up.

You cant lie your way out of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo6y2fwLZ_Q&feature=PlayList&p=5D2EA02EABD01947&index=0&playnext=1

They are selling a book, there will be free building plans on the
website. Of Course without mass production and without funding each
build is going to end up way to expensive.

The concept is at least 40 years old.

You can either accept technology never makes it.

Or you can try verbally suppressing it without seeing anything.

This would make the point much better.

Anyway, have fun!

That's what life was all about remember. :-)

http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2

Thanks for your time,

.


author: LauraM

text:
On Nov 25, 8:08 am, Jerry Kraus <[email]> wrote:

Whoever said money is the root of all evil is correct.  We are our own
worst enemy.


text:
On Nov 25, 11:08 am, Jerry Kraus <[email]> wrote:
[snip]
[snip]

This can be demonstrated to be crap with any of several
single words. For example: Intel.

[more snips]

Again, this can easily be demonstrated to be crap. Fusion would
not be "free energy" nor "unlimited energy." Not in any sense.
The simplest designs for fusion would involve many
$billions in plant construction. And hundreds, possibly thousands
of people to run them. And infrastructure requirements don't go
away, so you still need power lines, right of way, and that guy
with the tool belt to come turn on your power.
Socks


author: doug

text:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

Reading must not be your strong point. Look at your own post a few lines
above this.


text:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

So when I said you did not know how to do it, I was correct. You are
only guessing.

It is clear that you are only blustering.


text:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

In other words, you have no idea how to do it.


text:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

It certainly was not in your post. You made some vague
allusions and then proceeded to insults.  So you have
made a claim without any backing.


author: John J

text:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

How are fusion and fission related? I mean the physics, class, etc..


text:
Jerry Kraus wrote:

You are the fucking know-it-all. You tell US! What a maroon.


author: Mason C

text:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:04:36 -0800 (PST), Jerry Kraus <[email]>
wrote:

Because warp drives have not yet become economical.

Mason Clark

*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*
http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
 -- many excerpts you can see --


text:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 06:44:25 -0800 (PST), gabydewilde <[email]>
wrote:

"COLD FUSION" ????   Good Lord, is that still around?   I thought it dead and
burried.  The Night of the Living Dead?

Mason Clark

*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*
http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
 -- many excerpts you can see --


text:
On Nov 29, 7:14 pm, Mason C <[email]> wrote:

Really?  I would have rather thought they would be.


text:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:33:51 -0800 (PST), Jerry Kraus
<[email]> wrote:

No: a great many things are absolute, such as the fact there is no
such thing as "free energy."


text:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:03:12 -0800 (PST), Puppet_Sock
<[email]> wrote:

At least the kook (and thank you, killfile!) claimed fusion is
"free energy," instead of the kooks who claim magnets are. That's
got to be a step up, however tiny.


author: Bert Hyman

text:
In news:[email]
Benj <[email]> wrote:

Serve whom, exactly?


author: Androcles

text:
"Lawyerkill" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Nov 25, 11:12?am, LauraM <[email]> wrote:

The Internet is the root of all evil
=========================

Get off it, you evil bastard.


author: Han de Bruijn

text:
LauraM wrote:

Indeed. And Man said, Let us Money make in our image after our likeness:
and let it have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (Bible, alike Genesis 26)

Han de Bruijn


author: John Galt

text:
LauraM wrote:

Actually, nobody ever said that, except for the guy misquoting St. Paul.
The actual quote is "The LOVE of money is the root of all evil."

A nuance, to be sure, but relevant.

JG


text:
In news:[email]
LauraM <[email]> wrote:

Really? How would you trade without it? Would you like to revert to a
barter economy? A subsistence economy? Or perhaps you'd like to become a
bandit and simply steal what you want from those who have it?

Maybe you think money is evil because you're not proud of the way you
get yours; many of us don't have that problem.

[By the way, the actual saying is "The love of money is the root of all
evil", which has even worse connotations].


text:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:15:55 -0600, John J <[email]> wrote:

Google "fusion fission"  for example:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_nuclear_fission_different_from_nuclear_fusion

Present nuclear power plants run on fission: uranium atoms splitting up.
Hydrogen bombs are triggered by fission then add fusion for a bigger bang.
Fussion as a controlled energy source is not yet in sight, not at the end of the
tunnel, not over the horizon, only a speculation.

Mason Clark

*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*
http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
 -- many excerpts you can see --


text:
Mason C wrote:

The simulators are free! Just hold your breath until you see stars, wake
up a minute in the future - in lieu of mentioning harmless but illegal
natural leaves and stuff.


text:
I keep noticing this subject title:  "... nuclear fusion..." and feel the need
to comment.

1.  There is no law of physics that says or implies that nuclear fusion will
ever be a useful source of energy.

2.  Experiments using monstrous machines to induce a miniscule bit of
fusion give to encouragement to the notion that such a machine will
ever be a practical source of energy.

In short, the obstacle to controlled nuclear fusion is that it isn't.
If you get the meaning of "isn't"

Mason Clark

*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*
http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
 -- many excerpts you can see --


text:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:21:09 -0600, John Galt <[email]>
wrote:

I love money (i.e., gold, silver, copper, rubies, emeralds) and by
the gods I ain't evil. Damn shame, too: the evil seem to live
better.


text:
Mason C wrote:

:) I know. I just wanted Kraus to be reminded. It's a whole class of
difference. His impression that they are similar because of spelling is
just hilarious.


text:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:32:02 -0800, Mason C <[email]>
wrote:

typo error in 2. at "no"  (was "to")

Mason Clark

*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*
http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
 -- many excerpts you can see --


author: Sam J

text:
Mason C <[email]> wrote:

The sun shows that its a very viable source of energy.

The problem is doing it on earth as well as on the sun.

There were plenty of failed attempts at flying machines before they were shown to be viable.


text:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:00:19 +1100, "Sam J" <[email]> wrote:

Trivial detail.

Failing by flying too close to the sun may have been the first attempt.

Mason Clark

*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*
http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
 -- many excerpts you can see --


author: Russ Allbery

subject: Re: 2nd RFD: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated moderated

text:
In news.groups, Cognitee <[email]> writes:

Then make no mistake about this:  you have already lost.

Let me explain why.

Anyone can, whenever they wish, set up a mailing list to discuss the
topic.  On that mailing list, which they would own, they can set whatever
rules for biased discussion that they so choose and present the material
in whatever fashion they wish.  And there is nothing whatsoever that you
can do about this.

Furthermore, I would argue that this is in complete accordance with free
speech and free press, just as anyone with a printing press can publish a
newspaper full of lies and untruths about psychology or any other topic.
The responsibility for choosing who to believe lies with the reader.

This is rather important and bears repeating.

*The responsibility for choosing who to believe lies with the reader.*
You will not ever be able to ensure all fora are open, or even refute all
posts to an open forum.  What you can do is present your side, let your
proponents present theirs, and attempt to be persuasive.

If you find this discouraging, and if you're worried about the affects of
propaganda and so forth, then you're not the only one.  I have very little
confidence in the majority of people being able to make up their own minds
based on evidence rather than emotion, and in general fully expect the
average human to be incapable of logical analysis of anything.
Thankfully, however, the average person using Usenet is still a cut above
that extremely depressing mean.  And in any event, there's very little
you're going to be able to do about it.

The best that you can do is to attempt to be persuasive.  Your debating
style so far on this proposal has been anything but; it has been
disjointed, strident, irrational, and extremely unconvincing.  Preventing
the creation of a forum that you believe will be biased will do nothing to
further your side of any arguments.  The only thing that will do that that
is under your control is to improve the quality of your own presentation.

This is not, in fact, true.  Usenet is a lot of things.  Pretty much any
statement saying "Usenet is this" is going to be wrong.

Usenet has many newsgroups of the type that you're describing, yes, and
will continue to have them regardless of whether this proposal passes or
not.  Usenet also has announcement groups where no editorialism is allowed
at all.  It has groups devoted to a particular perspective where opposing
statements are rarely allowed.  It has groups dedicated to open discussion
within certain limits, such as soc.religion.mormon, which welcomes
arguments both for and against the religion but forbids posting of direct
quotes from the Temple ceremonies.

Usenet has a lot of different things.  And it's large enough to support
another without destroying the current fora.

You're neglecting a fairly critical aspect of this argument, namely that
most people have only a limited amount of time to spend on Usenet and
finding the good posts takes time.  If there are too many "bad" posts for
each good, by some criteria, or even if there are simply too many posts
period, bad or good, some people will leave due to lack of time to follow
the traffic.  Those people are often quite valuable posters with unique
insights which are then lost.  This has always been the case on Usenet,
will always be the case on Usenet, and is one of the major challenges
facing quite a few groups.  For if too many of the valuable posters leave,
the quality of the group degrades significantly.

You're also neglecting a basic point of human psychology, namely that not
everyone is capable of ignoring things they find insulting, disagree with,
or consider a waste.  In fact, doing so is an extremely *uncommon* skill
and quite definitely a learned one, and some people cannot learn it or
will not invest the required effort.  Some of those people will be the
above-mentioned valuable posters whose insights will be missed.

This is another reason why it is always to your advantage to remain calm,
civil, and polite in all discussions, since otherwise you may be deprived
of the opinions of people you could have learned from but who are
incapable for whatever reason of wading through posts they find offensive.

Perhaps they are attempting to create a forum for a different type of
discussion than the one you wish to participate in.  Perhaps they aren't,
but simply aren't making their perspective very clear.  In either event,
the current forum will continue to exist in the present form, and those
discussions can continue there.  In the meantime, the new group may have
an atmosphere that will draw in posters unwilling to participate in the
current forum who may voice opinions you find interesting, even if you
personally don't want to participate in the moderated group.

But the measure of reasonability should lie in the hands of the reader.
In most long-standing and on-going arguments, the participants are no
longer attempting to persuade each other, as both sides have long ago
decided what they wish to believe.  Rather, they are attempting to
persuade those new to the newsgroups, or those who are as yet undecided.
The way to do that is to present your own arguments in a persuasive
manner, not to constantly complain about the arguments your opponents are
using.  Doing the latter leaves you sounding like you have no arguments of
your own.  If your evidence is more persuasive than theirs, this will be
apparent when both are presented, and you will continue to have a forum in
which to present your arguments.


author: Cognitee

text:
Dear Russ,
   If the voters want to provide a bunch of people, several of whom have
shown themselves to be untrustworthy and to only care about themselves,
yet another artificial, protected forum, go ahead.  The lies will go
unchallenged. (Yes, several regulars in the present newsgroup, who want
the new newsgroup, have shown they will intentionally lie in order to
thwart certain kinds of new efforts or new research.)  Several have been
deceptive and misrepresented data, stating falsehoods against science and
against ideas that may be best for discovering good treatments and best
for clients.  With the new newsgroup, they will able to state things that
will be believed because they can be stated "positively" (since they are
in accord with conventional myths of people).  The "negative" retorts
shall often not be allowed, because one will often not be allowed to
question ethics of subgroups of practioners and one will often be censored
when pointing out how data is being misrepresented.
   This would be the 4th protected forum for the "therapists".  They
alreday have sci.psychology.research, sci.psychology.announce, and the
CLINICAL-PSYCHOLOGISTS mailing list.
   But, Russ, you are incorrect about one thing:  we do not have to give
it to them.  We can leave them just with the present group, where they
have to face all issues and questions AND deal with the people.  THEY
**DO** have to win a vote to establish their new newsgroup.  The voter can
indicate that this new newsgroup is unneeded.  In fact, the traffic is
quite managable in the present newsgroup.  They simply want a protected
(CENSORED) haven for propaganda and for generating good "p.r."  (It will
be a dull newsgroup.)  BUT, most importantly, it would be an impediment to
progress and simply bolster favorable myths and the status qou.  I don't
know why anyone would vote for this group.  Check out the present
newsgroup and see the lies that would go unchecked.  Three persons just
recently have "lied for the field" and against foundation research and
progress or change.

P.S.  Russ, please don't provide your post to several newsgroups and then
try to force the reply to a single newsgroup.  You too are trying to bias
things, it seems.

In article <[email]>, Russ Allbery
<[email]> wrote:


author: Ouch Man!

subject: ph of alcohol

text:
hi guys,

   can you tell me the ph of alcohol, or of any site that gives the ph of alcohol.

thanks,

Ouch Man Ouch


author: Rudolf Potucek

subject: Re: ph of alcohol

text:
Why do you need to know and what do you need to know? Alcohol in water
would be so weak an acid that you'd never notice ... call it pH 7 for all
purposes related to coatings.

Pure alcohol is trickier to answer because the pH scale depends on th
autoprotolysis of the solvent, i.e. alcohol, which would be much less
than water, so the question would rather be what the pH value means.

Just my $.02,

 Rudolf

Ouch Man! <[email]>
wrote: : hi guys,

:    can you tell me the ph of alcohol, or of any site that gives the ph of alcohol.

: thanks,

: Ouch Man Ouch


author: Rheolo

subject: Re: ph of alcohol

text:
How "Pure" that alcohol is ?
Coze non-ionic medias do not carry much ion that impress pH eletrodes...

Anyhow, in the theoretical point of view, all alcohols have a alkaline
behavior.
If there's enough traces of distilled water, the pH electrode will go on the
alkaline side.

This is in the understanding that everything is relative...
If an alcohol is placed in the presence of a super powefull alkaline
material such as an carboxilic chloride, it will behave as an acid...
(Acetyl chloride with methanol for indstance)...

Rheolo

=================

Ouch Man! a ï¿½crit dans le message
<[email]>...
alcohol.


author: Dave Martin

subject: Re: piezo electrical film

text:
Look for a material with the trade name of "Kynar".  Form old Machine Design
ads, ICI may be the manufacturer.
Best regards,
Dave Martin

Frank meylaerts wrote:


author: Scott Nudds

subject: Re: If Global Warming is a sham

text:
Oz wrote:
: Actually this is called communism these days. A structure that has been
: proven to utterly fail very much faster than capitalism and usually
: comes complete with dictatorships and a police state and severe
: curtailment of private freedoms.

  I wouldn't be so quick to jump to such a conclusion.  Communism is
going to be around for ever as an ideal for a rational society.  People
like structure. People like order. Society can not exist without it. And
as the world's population continues to increase the interaction between
people will continue the trend to greater socialization. The same trend
will continue as man increases his mental facalties and as people
realize that cooperation produces better results than conflict.

Oz wrote:
: It is also worth noting that it has managed to produce by far the
: worst cases of pollution humanity has ever managed to achieve.

  Sorry bubb.  This is not a result of communism.  It's a result of a
closed society.  You see precisely the same problem's all over the world
where the public are prevented from monitoring what is going on.

  Hanford and Rocky Flats are wonderful American examples.

Oz wrote:
: I am sure Nudds would be happy under such a state
: since he would almost certainly be provided with free accommodation in a
: scenic and remote area combined with payment free obligate labour known
: in Russia as a 'Gulag'.

  Gulag, Schmulag....  The fact is, for at least the last 20 years there
have more Americans in prison than there ever were in the Russian prison
system.

  American's don't like to hear about the murders in their prison for
profit system.  They avert their gaze rather than read stories about
U.S. prison guards arranging for and betting on human cockfights, on
prison grounds.  They don't know about the coerced labour in American
prisons.  And of course if there is physical abuse of prisoners in the
American system then the criminals deserve it because they are the scum
of the earth, while all Russian prisoners are Freedom fighters opposing
a totalitarian regime.

U.S. PRISON POPULATION EXPLODES - Jan 19, 98
-------------------------------
- AP -

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. prison population rose nearly 6% last year, from
1.6 million to more than 1.7 million, figures show.

That puts one in every 155 U.S. residents in jail as of midyear 1997,
federal figures show.

However, the jump was slightly smaller than those recorded in earlier
years. From 1990 to 1997, the number rose an average of 6.5% annually.
The number of prisoners behind bars in state and federal institutions
grew in 1997 by 55,198, or 4.7%. That was also less than the annual
average increase, which has stood 7.7% since 1990.

But the figures for prisoners in local jails rose by more than the
average.


author: Gerrit Hanenburg

subject: Early hominids in grassland-dominated ecosystems

text:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007199

Abstract

Background
Major biological and cultural innovations in late Pliocene hominin
evolution are frequently linked to the spread or fluctuating presence
of C4 grass in African ecosystems. Whereas the deep sea record of
global climatic change provides indirect evidence for an increase in
C4 vegetation with a shift towards a cooler, drier and more variable
global climatic regime beginning approximately 3 million years ago
(Ma), evidence for grassland-dominated ecosystems in continental
Africa and hominin activities within such ecosystems have been
lacking.

Methodology/Principal Findings
We report stable isotopic analyses of pedogenic carbonates and
ungulate enamel, as well as faunal data from ~2.0 Ma archeological
occurrences at Kanjera South, Kenya. These document repeated hominin
activities within a grassland-dominated ecosystem.

Conclusions/Significance
These data demonstrate what hitherto had been speculated based on
indirect evidence: that grassland-dominated ecosystems did in fact
exist during the Plio-Pleistocene, and that early Homo was active in
open settings. Comparison with other Oldowan occurrences indicates
that by 2.0 Ma hominins, almost certainly of the genus Homo, used a
broad spectrum of habitats in East Africa, from open grassland to
riparian forest. This strongly contrasts with the habitat usage of
Australopithecus, and may signal an important shift in hominin
landscape usage.


author: Marc Verhaegen

subject: Re: Early hominids in grassland-dominated ecosystems

text:
--Falasha

Yes, I think we need combinations of isotopic data (C, N, O), and
considerations of different diets (incl.different aquatic diets).

That relatives of ours along waterways sometimes butchered savanna bovids
(eg, drowned & trample when crossing rivers?) doesn't contradict AAT
(littoral Homo ancestors once).  To the contrary: stone tool use was
probably first used in opening shellfish etc., as we see in sea otters.

--marc


author: Lee Olsen

text:
On Oct 22, 6:36 am, Marc Verhaegen <[email]> wrote:

I guess Falasha has been reading the wrong literature:

What do stable isotopes tell us about hominid
dietary and ecological niches in the pliocene?
J. A. Lee-Thorp , M. Sponheimer , N. J. van der Merwe
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Volume 13, Issue 1-2 , Pages 104 - 113

"By now a reasonable set of carbon and oxygen isotope data from tooth
enamel
 has been accumulated for South African Plio-Pleistocene hominids and
associated
 fauna. Almost all individuals measured, independent of species and
importantly,
environment, show significant C4 dietary inputs with some individuals
showing
very substantial C4 inputs. This implies interactions with grassy
environments
 for a period of well over a million years, a period that saw
environments in southern
 Africa shift from closed woodlands to more open, grassy landscapes."

and

"Carbon isotope analysis alone is unable to permit the important
distinction between
direct consumption of grasses, or indirect consumption via grass-
eating animals, such
as small vertebrates and invertebrates."


author: deowll

text:
"Marc Verhaegen" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Some chimps use them to open nuts.  The hammer and anvil may be LCA tech.


author: jerry warner

text:
Marc Verhaegen wrote:

all at 2:34pm UTC 2004 BP. Science can play GAWD
too!


author: RichTravsky

text:
Marc Verhaegen wrote:

Relatives of ours butchered animals elsewhere too. Good opportunists.

Monkeys use rocks too. No water needed.


subject: Re: Early hominids in grassland-dominated ecosystems link to video

text:
"deowll" <[email]> wrote in message
news:hc0434$b1u$[email]...

If that is what they are calling a closed canopy forest the trees aren't
very large and the canopy isn't all that closed with a lot of ground cover.
Any decent sized animal is going to have to walk between trees.

I have also noted that the big toe is so large that if drawn in next to the
foot it just might be able to use it to toe off. In fact it might have used
it any way if it walked toes out. The big toe on this animal may not be all
that much shorter than Lucy's or a hobbits.

I hadn't thought much about that 4' tall 110 pounds before but that is about
twice what a human child that height would weigh based on an old human
growth scale. Short but powerful.


author: Guy Van de Poel & A. Kalus

subject: Re: Digital Camera Dilemma - Depth of field - NOT

text:
A bit late, but I'm interested in the following:
(sent to personal address instead of the list, for which my excuses)

I know next to nothing about digital camaras, and only a little about SLRs.
What you discussed here is true for pictures where your subject is not going
to move. In the field, a faster film (200 ASA or even 400) will give you an
advantage because the butterfly will not have to stay immobile for that
long. I have too many pictures of nice flowers, where a skipper was sitting
the moment I pressed the button. How well do CCDs compared to film?

Guy.

Anne, thank you you stopped praying, the sun finally came back this morning.
Yesterday I thought I had seen Noah, who had just started loading ...

 ------------------------------------------------------------

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl


author: Will Cook

text:
One big advantage to digital photography is that you can take a lot of
photos without wasting any film.  Most photos of live butterflies don't
turn out well - best thing to do is to take a lot of shots and throw out
the bad ones.  Persistence often pays off.  ISO 100 (the equivalent of
ASA) produces the best results and can be used on most occasions - the
noisier higher ISO settings are best reserved for when you can't get a
shot any other way.

I've had some success with a Nikon CoolPix 995, which I got 1.5 months
ago, never having taken a butterfly photo before.  Small versions are
posted at http://www.duke.edu/~cwcook/pix/butterflies.html
Two recent additions - Leonard's and Meske's Skippers - were
particularly challenging - it took a lot of persistence to get close
enough for a good shot (1 foot or less).  (The Leonard's in particular
usually took off when I got closer than 10 feet.)

"Guy Van de Poel & A. Kalus" wrote:


author: Anne Kilmer

text:
"Guy Van de Poel & A. Kalus" wrote:
Guaranteed, your butterfly will have left before your digital camera
deigns to take the picture. Probably it would be quicker if you use
manual rather than automatic ... as it is, apparently the machine says
three Hail Marys before it gets around to taking the picture.
Pictures of dead things, landscapes and cooperative people work just
fine.
It is, however, easy to throw away the bad pictures.
I never did get good pictures of our pine martens, while John, with the
video camera, got miles and miles of really nice film. Perhaps a digital
videocamera is the way to go?
Or perhaps you should coat them posies with tanglefoot. ;-)
Anne Kilmer
South Florida

 ------------------------------------------------------------

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl


author: Mike Darrett

subject: pH of supercritical water

text:
Say... is the pH of supercritical water still 7.0?

Thanks

Mike


author: Allan Harvey

subject: Re: pH of supercritical water

text:
Mike wrote:

No, the self-ionization of water changes with temperature and pressure.  For
the current standard about the ion product (from which one can derive the pH),
go to www.iapws.org, choose "Releases and Guidelines" and then Releases and
find the one for Ion Product of Water.  If you find an old (from the 1980s or
early 90s) ASME Steam Tables book, it has a plot of pH based on this standard,
which is likely to be replaced in the next 5 or 10 years.

You can note that the document says it is only recommended for densities above
0.45 g/cm3 (the critical density is 0.322).  There is still a lot of
uncertainty about the self-ionization of water at high temperatures and
medium/low densities, because the experimental measurements are very difficult.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, CO
"Any opinions expressed are mine, and should not be attributed to
my employer, my wife, or my cats."


author: Bruce Sinclair

subject: Re: pH of supercritical water

text:
In article <[email]>, [email] (Mike Darrett) wrote:

Not sure ... but practically, I have yet to see any water with a pH of 7 :)

Bruce

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oook !
NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !


author: Gavin Whittaker

subject: Re: pH of supercritical water

text:
Mike Darrett <[email]> writted:
: Say... is the pH of supercritical water still 7.0?

  The effect of increasing temperature in water is to lower the pH, and
this trend continues to a minimum of around pH=5.5 at around 300C at
elevated pressures in the 10s of MPa.  Well above the supercritical point
this value rises fairly sharply, but at the critical point itself, the pH
is around 6 or so.  Supercritical water is often used as a solvent in
acid-catalysed reactions for this reason.

  HTH, Gavin


subject: Re: pH of supercritical water

text:
[email]123 (Allan Harvey) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Thanks to all who replied.

I thought it was interesting to note that hydrolysis of cellulose
occurs at around 50 degrees C with 70% concentrated sulfuric acid, at
around 200 degrees C with dilute (<1%) sulfuric acid, and in near
critical/supercritical water with *no* additional acid added.

http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/concentrated.html
http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/dilute.html

Mike Darrett


author: Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.

subject: Re: Implants Price?

text:
This internet, is it great or what?

****************************

ONE OF THE BIGGEST MISTAKES IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

If I recall correctly, the bossman was out hiking and camping and his
wife made the decision ....

JOEL

As for an operating system (OS) for the new computers, since Microsoft
had never written an operating system before, Gates had suggested that
IBM investigate an OS called CP/M (Control Program for
Microcomputers), written by Gary Kildall of Digital Research. Kindall
had his Ph.D. in computers and had written the most successful
operating system of the time, selling over 600,000 copies of CP/M, his
OS set the standard at that time.

IBM tried to contact Kildall for a meeting, executives met with Mrs.
Kildall who refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement. IBM soon
returned to Bill Gates and gave Microsoft the contract to write the
new operating system, one that would eventually wipe Kildall's CP/M
out of common use.

********************************

Inventors of the Modern Computer

The History of the MS-DOS Operating Systems, Microsoft, Tim Paterson,
and Gary Kildall

IBM PC Inventors of the Modern Computer Series
ï¿½ Table of Contents
ï¿½ Next Chapter
The Apple Lisa and Consumer GUI
ENTER

More on MS-DOS, Time Paterson, and Gary Kildall
ï¿½ A Short History of MS-DOS
Written by Tim Paterson himself.
ï¿½ Origins of MS-DOS
Articles about MS-DOS and Tim Paterson.
ï¿½ The Deal of the Century
More on Microsoft's purchase of the "Quick and Dirty Operating
System".
ï¿½ Microsoft Timeline
ï¿½ Windows Operating Systems Family History


author: Alexander Vasserman DDS., BS.

subject: Re: Implants Price?

text:
"Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S."

Something is missing here.
Before the MS-DOS we had the PC-DOS this one was not written by microsoft.

<[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...


author: Vaughn

subject: Re: Implants Price?

text:
"Alexander Vasserman DDS., BS." <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

     Remember DR-DOS?  Was called "Doctor DOS" but the "DR" actually came from
"Digital Research".

Vaughn


subject: Re: Implants Price?

text:
On 8 Jul 2004 22:38:38 -0700, [email] (Alexander
Vasserman DDS., BS.) wrote:

PC-DOS was the IBM version? Gosh I miss those days!

JOEL

(I still have a TRASH-80 (TRS-80) in storage!

**

Development of MS-DOS and PC-DOS began in October 1980, when IBM began
searching the market for an operating system for the
yet-to-be-introduced IBM PC.

IBM had originally intended to use Digital Research's (actually, they
had the somewhat pretentious name of "Intergalactic Digital Research"
at the time) CP/M was then the industry standard operating system -
you either ran a BASIC with disk functions, someone's proprietary OS,
or CP/M.

Folklore reports various stories about the rift between DRI and IBM.
The most popular story claims Gary Kildall or DRI snubbed the IBM
executives by flying his airplane when the meeting was scheduled.
Another story claims Kildall didn't want to release the source for
CP/M to IBM, which would be odd, since they released it to other
companies. One noted industry pundit claims Kildall's wife killed the
deal by insisting on various contract changes. I suspect the deal was
killed by the good ol' boy network. It's hard to imagine a couple of
junior IBM executives giving up when ordered to a task as simple as
licensing an operating system from a vendor. It wouldn't look good on
their performance reports. It would be interesting to hear IBM's
story...

IBM then talked to a small company called Microsoft. Microsoft was a
language vendor. Bill Gates and Paul Allen had written Microsoft BASIC
and were selling it on punched tape or disk to early PC hobbyists,
which was probably a step up from the company's original name and goal
- they were Traf-O-Data before, making car counters for highway
departments.

Microsoft had no 8086 real operating system to sell, but quickly made
a deal to license Seattle Computer Products' 86-DOS operating system,
which had been written by Tim Paterson earlier in 1980 for use on that
company's line of 8086, S100 bus micros. 86-DOS (also called QDOS, for
Quick and Dirty Operating System) had been written as more or less a
16-bit version of CP/M, since Digital Research was showing no hurry in
introducing CP/M-86. Paterson's DOS 1.0 was approximately 4000 lines
of assembler source.

This code was quickly polished up and presented to IBM for evaluation.
IBM found itself left with Microsoft's offering of "Microsoft Disk
Operating System 1.0". An agreement was reached between the two, and
IBM agreed to accept 86-DOS as the main operating system for their new
PC. Microsoft purchased all rights to 86-DOS in July 1981, and "IBM
Personal Computer DOS 1.0" was ready for the introduction of the IBM
PC in October 1981. IBM subjected the operating system to an extensive
quality-assurance program, reportedly found well over 300 bugs, and
decided to rewrite the programs. This is why PC-DOS is copyrighted by
both IBM and Microsoft.

It is sometimes amusing to reflect on the fact that the IBM PC was not
originally intended to run MS-DOS. The target operating system at the
end of the development was for a (not yet in existence) 8086 version
of CP/M. On the other hand, when DOS was originally written the IBM PC
did not yet exist! Although PC-DOS was bundled with the computer,
Digital Research's CP/M-86 would probably have been the main operating
system for the PC except for two things - Digital Research wanted $495
for CP/M-86 (considering PC-DOS was essentially free) and many
software developers found it easier to port existing CP/M software to
DOS than to the new version of CP/M. The IBM PC shipped without an
operating system.

IBM didn't start bundling DOS until the second generation AT/339 came
out. You could order one of three operating systems for your PC,
assuming you popped for the optional disk drive and 64k RAM upgrade
(base models had 16k and a cassette player port). These operating
systems were IBM Personal Computer DOS 1.0, a version of the UCSD
p-System, which was an integrated Pascal operating system something
like the souped-up BASIC operating systems used by the Commodore 64
and others, or Digital Research's CP/M-86, which was officially an
option although you couldn't buy it until later. Since IBM's $39.95
DOS was far cheaper than anyone else's alternative, darned near
everyone bought DOS.

Microsoft Press' "MSDOS Encyclopedia" shows a reproduction of a late
DOS 1.25 OEM brochure. Microsoft was touting future enhancements to
1.25 including Xenix-compatible pipes, process forks, and
multitasking, as well as "graphics and cursor positioning, kanji
support, multi-user and hard disk support, and networking." Microsoft
certainly thought big, but, alas, the forks, multitasking, and
multiuser support never came about, at least in US versions of DOS.
Oddly, the flyer claims:

"MS-DOS has no practical limit on disk size. MS-DOS uses 4-byte XENIX
OS compatible pointers for file and disk capacity up to 4 gigabytes."

Umm... yeah. One sort of gets the idea nobody at Microsoft had a hard
disk larger than 32 megabytes...

86-DOS February 1981 Paterson's Quick'n'Dirty DOS first runs on IBM's
wirewrapped PC prototype

PC-DOS 1.0 August 1981 original IBM release

PC-DOS 2.0 March 1983 for PC/XT, Unix-type subdirectory support,
installable device drivers, I/O redirection, subdirectories, hard disk
support, handle calls

PC-DOS 3.0 August 1984 1.2 meg drive for PC/AT, some new system calls,
new external programs, 16-bit FAT, specific support for IBM network

MS-DOS 4.0 April 1986 multitasking (Europe only) - withdrawn from
market after a very short run

PC-DOS 3.3 April 1987 for PS/2 series, 1.44 meg support, multiple DOS
partition support, code page switching, improved foreign language
support, some new function calls, support for the AT's CMOS clock

PC-DOS 4.0 August 1988 32mb disk limit officially broken, minor EMS
support, more new function calls, enhanced network support for
external commands. PCjr support dropped.

MS-DOS 5.0 June 1991 high memory support, uses up to 8 hard disks,
command line editor and aliasing, 2.88mb floppies, ROMable OEM kit
available.
MS-DOS 6.0 March 1993 disk compression (Doublespace), multiple
configurations in CONFIG.SYS


subject: Re: Implants Price?

text:
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 10:07:37 GMT, "Vaughn"
<[email]> wrote:

I liked that lots and used it well into the Windows era!

PS. I still have applications running on Windows 3.3 (WFW). These apps
are running on new computers that the operating system has been
overwritten with the older OS.

Believe me they FLY! I also have apps running on separate partitions
of a Windows NT machine, different operating systems! Weird right?

JOEL


subject: Re: Implants Price?

text:
"Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S." <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

I still have a "Timex St Clair 2K" in storage. I wonder if it is worth
anything as a collectable?


author: Happy Oyster

subject: Re: Implants Price?

text:
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 06:28:27 -0400, "Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S."
<[email]> wrote:

YES!, Sir !

No, dear Mr. Eichen. PC-DOS still is active. There is a version PC-DOS
2000, available on CD.

Regards,

Aribert Deckers


subject: Re: Implants Price?

text:
On 10 Jul 2004 23:35:19 -0700, [email] (Alexander
Vasserman DDS., BS.) wrote:

Is that the one that uses the TV as a monitor? If so, that's the one I
got in storage too.

2K machines! Plus a tape drive.


subject: Re: Implants Price?

text:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 01:02:35 +0100, Happy Oyster
<[email]> wrote:

Its a plot. The Americans are packaging PC-DOS on CDs and selling it
to Germans.

Over here, PC-DOS ort any such cheezy operating system can be
downloaded in a heartbeat.

JOEL


subject: Re: Implants Price?

text:
"Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S." <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

YEP.
I wonder if anyone collects these things?


subject: Re: Implants Price?

text:
Try looking on eBay!

JOEL

On 11 Jul 2004 23:52:33 -0700, [email] (Alexander
Vasserman DDS., BS.) wrote:


author: Allen Bong

subject: Converting Ladder to cmos logic

text:
Hi group,

                               +12v
                                |
                NC              |
                | |,       .-.  |
   IN -+--------,-´-------( X )-+
       |       ´| |        '-'  |
       |                        |
       |   | |NO       .-----.  |
       +---| |--+------|     |--+
       |   | |  |      '-----'  |
       |        |       RELAY   |
       |    T   |               |
       |   ---  |               |
       +---o o--+               |
                                |
                                |
(created by AACircuit v1.28.6 beta 04/19/05 www.tech-chat.de)

I have the above ladder diagram consisting a relay, a buzzer and a
push button

switch.

I would like to sound the buzzer "x" when the input is low and when
the button is

pressed the relay would be switched on and holds itself through the
"NO" contact and

the buzzer is switched off due to the "NC" contact is opened.  Both
the NO and NC

contacts belong to the same relay.  When the input goes high, the
relay releases and

the circuit goes back to normal waiting for the next alarm.

I would like to convert this into a circuit using cmos chips.  I use
an AND and

inverters and a 4013 FF and came out with the circuit below.

                                            VCC
              VCC                            +
              .-.                            |
 ALARM=L      | |10K                      .-----.
 NORM=H       | |                         |     |BUZZER
              '-'                         '-----'
 IN|\          |   _4081                     |
  -| >O---+-------|  \        __4081         |
   |/     |    |  |   )------|  \    ___   |/
          |    +--|__/       |   )--|___|--|      VCC
          |    +-----+   +---|__/    10K   |>      |+
          |    |     |   |                   |    ===
          |    o |   |   |                   |    /-\
          |  PB  |=| |   |                  ===    |
          |    o |   |   |                  GND    |
          |    |     |   |     +-------------------+
          |    |     |   |  .-----.               .-.
          |   ===    |   +--|Q S D|-VCC           | |
          |   GND    |      |     |      /|       | |10K
          |          |      |_   <|----O< |---+   '-'
          |          |      |Q R  |      \|   |    |
          |          |      '-----'           |    |
          |          |         | 4013         |   ===
          |          |         |              |   GND
          +----------|---------|--------------+
                     |         |    H -> L
                     |   |\    |
                     +---| >O--+
                         |/
(created by AACircuit v1.28.6 beta 04/19/05 www.tech-chat.de)

The C and R at the set input of the 4013 is a power-up set to make the
Q output high

during power on.  The PB silences the buzzer until a new alarm is
detected.

The circuit seems too complicated and I was cracking my head how to
simply it. I

would also like the 4013 to be toggled by both H to L as well as L to
H transitions.

How should I do it?

Is there any simpler way to do it?  Any help very much appreciated.

Allen

Allen


subject: Re: Converting Ladder to cmos logic

text:
On Oct 28, 10:58 am, ehsjr <[email]> wrote:

I tried your circuit and it works.  If I change the NPN transistor to
a Darlington like 2sd768, do I need to add one more diode in series
with D2?  The SCR I used is FOR3G.

Thank you.

 Allen


subject: Re: Converting Ladder to cmos logic

text:
On Oct 31, 9:43 am, ehsjr <[email]> wrote:

The reason is I have about 30 pieces of 2sd768 sitting there idling.
The buzzer that I am using has a built-in circuit which flashes some
LED as well as a loud buzzer.  I am afraid the current may be too high
and I don't have any TO220 transistors handy unless I go to purchase
them from the nearby town.  And I have to make about 25 of these
circuits on a 1" x 1" pcb.

Thanks for your tips on using the SCR that I bought.

Regards

Allen


subject: Re: Converting Ladder to cmos logic

text:
On Oct 28, 10:58 am, ehsjr <[email]> wrote:

Wow, I never thought that the solution can be this simple.  I'll try
it out tonight and let you know about it tomorrow.  Have to go out and
buy a SCR.

Allen


author: ehsjr

subject: Re: Converting Ladder to cmos logic

text:
Allen Bong wrote:

You may consider this simpler than the relay or the CMOS
approach:

   +12 ---+------------+----+-------+
          |            |   k|       |
          |            |  [D1]   [Buzzer]
          |            |    |       |
        [1K]         [1K]   +-------+
          |            |            |
          |            |          c/
          |            +----------|  NPN
          |            |          e\
          |           ---           |
          |           \ / SCR      [D2]
          |           ---           |k
          |    _     / |            |
          +---o o---+  +------------+
                       |
    IN-----------------+

The SCR does not conduct until the putton is pressed.
Because the SCR is not conducting, the base of the NPN
is +12 and the NPN can conduct when IN goes low. When
that happens, the buzzer energizes through the NPN.
When the button is pressed, the SCR conducts, and the
base of the NPN goes low, turning the NPN off and
de-energizing the buzzer.  The SCR will continue to
conduct, even after the button is released, until IN
goes high.

D2 creates a voltage drop to compensate for the voltage
drop across the SCR so that the emitter and the base
are at about the same level. D1 absorbs inductive kick
from the buzzer, if needed.

Ed