author: Kirk L. Shanahan

subject: Re: Shanahan's gambit

text:
James Salsman <[email]> wrote in message news:<1WEJ9.777$[email]>...
{snip}

In a calorimeter with any localized heat loss pathways, redistributing
the heat so that the %lost changes can produce a system change that
requires the calibration equation be changed to maintain accuracy.  I
call this a calibration constant shift (CCS).

Since ALL calorimeters are imperfect, and ALL have a few higher loss
pathways, a calibration constant shift is possible in all
calorimeters.
As you note, changing the recombination location could do that, since
typically the recombiner is a hot spot.

In my explanation of the CF effect, which I call the Fleischmann-Pons-
Hawkins Effect (FPHE), there is no nuclear process functioning. This
distinguishes the FPHE from all other claims to explain excess heat.
However, the observations of CF researchers are basically good, they
just trust their calorimetry and therefore conclude 'nuclear' is the
required word.  But what I've shown is that a CCS can cause apparent
excess heat.  The problem is then to decide if a CCS has occurred, or
if a true nuclear process is active.

So, in answer to your question, and recognizing that the CFers
explanations are close to correct, I propose that a 'special active
surface state' forms on the cathode that allows some recombination
to occur there, as opposed to the recombiner (in a closed cell).
That would produce a CCS, which would evidence as an excess heat
event.

IMHO, the best candidate for the 'special active surface state' is
something that allows H2 bubbles growing on the cathode to easily
combine with incident O2 bubbles.  The mixed gas bubble would then
ignite due to the catalytic activity of the metal cathode surface.
And I contend this is exactly what Szpak, et al, photographed with
their IR sensitive camera system, burning bubbles.

A lot of people claim they have 'checked' for recombination, and
haven't
found any.  The only hard data I have ever seen on this though is a
very
few reports of where collected water volume was measured, and these
all
had basic volume measurement techniques in use, which usually give a
5-10%
precision.  The CCSs I discussed in my reanalysis of Storms' data were
on the order of 1-3%.  The point is that, while careful measurements
as
you suggest would potentially resolve the issue, people don't actually
do
it.  Or, if they do, they just assume I should 'trust' them when they
say they checked.  Sure, they checked, but not accurately and
precisely
enough to tell.

In Miles and Bush's Navy report of 1996, they state that the best
excess
heat results they had was 520 mW.  Ed Storms' got 780 mW.  Miles and
Bush
don't do a calibration check of any kind during a CF event.  In fact,
in discussions with Ed Storms, it is clear that is impossible to do.
That means
a different calorimeter design is required that specifically probes
for a
CCS.  No such calorimeter exists today, which isn't surprising.  It is
a
major task to design one to check for a CCS, and nobody thought it was
important before.  Hopefully, people will understand the CCS problem
and
realize it is.

The 520 mW represents 30% excess, and they state it was their best
result.
They used an open cell in an isoperibolic calorimeter, which was a
single
point temperature measurement device.  That means that normally the
energy
stored in the H2 and O2 chemical bonds is lost up the stack, and that
only
a small fraction of the total heat produced is used to predict actual
heat
produced via the calibration equation.  A very small amount of
recombination in their cell is an uncalibrated situation, and I simply
claim that if they had calibrated with the same conditions as they
have
during an excess heat event, they would have gotten 0 excess heat (and
a
different calibration equation from the base case of 0 in-cell
recomb.).
Their calorimeter is fundamentally more suceptible to the generic
'CCS'
problem, meaning here simple hot spots as well as what I invoke in the
mass flow or Seebeck cases.

Miles and Bush report on water volume displacement by their matched
cells,
and they get one cell matching predicitons with an error of about
3.7%.
The second cell was a little low on the amount and had an error of
2.2%.
But!  None of these numbers are reported as being obtained during a
'CF-event'.  If they weren't, that means the authors have assumed,
based on 'normal' behavior, that no recombination can occur.  I
challenge that
assumption.  The bottom line is that all relevant parameters must be
specifically reported _DURING_ an excess heat event.  I haven't found
one
of these yet.

---
Kirk Shanahan   {My opinions...noone else's}


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Shanahan's gambit

text:
In article <1R9J9.711$[email]>, James Salsman <[email]> wrote:

: Do you or do you not agree that fusion between deuterons of low relative
: angular momentum (i.e., low temperature D+ particles in PdD) is less
: likely to produce free neutrons than fusion between deuterons of high
: relative angular momenta (i.e., hot D plasma)?  You do not even have to
: believe that low-temperature fusion happens any more often than whatever
: you consider to be the electrostatic chance.  When it does hapen, however
: rarely, does the temperature have an effect on the branching ratio or not?

Bad news:  the branching ratio *has* been measured at temperatures down
to room temperature (in muon-catalyzed fusion in the low temperature case)
and guess what?  The branching ratio is to a very good approximation
independent of the collision energy -- a result that should not come as
a surprise to anyone who understands the concept of "order of magnitude."

Which just proves that, as I said, the main conclusion that one can reach
from this discussion is that you do not know what you are talking about
and that you have no interest in altering the situation.

-----
Richard Schultz                              [email]
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
   -- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <[email]>


author: Jed Rothwell

subject: Re: Shanahan's gambit

text:
James Salsman writes:

I do not have 1696.

We have NAWCWPNS TP 8302 and NRL 1862. The titles are confusing:

8302:
MilesManomalousea.pdf

1862:
MosierBossthermaland.pdf (Vol 1. - Mosier-Boss is the first editor listed)
MosierBossthermalanda.pdf (Vol 2.)

I should add the NRL Technical Report Numbers to the Descriptions, to make
it easier to locate them.

Ah, there it is! I will see if I can use it.

I think you mean: . . .tr1862v1.pdf (no a).

We have these under MosierBossthermaland.pdf, MosierBossthermalanda.pdf, as
I said. The second volume has a non-fatal Acrobat error in first page, which
I cannot seem to get rid of. The copy at bovik.org has the same error.

- Jed


author: James Salsman

subject: Re: Shanahan's gambit

text:
Kirk L. Shanahan wrote, in reply to my comment:

I assume you mean D2 bubbles.  Two questions:

First, isn't it true that a traditional platinum control cathode would
have greater or equal catalytic activity for D2O recombination compared
to the corresponding experimental palladium cathode?

Second, how does O2 get to the cathode?  I read Dr. Britz as indicating
that the amount of oxygen dissolved in the electrolyte can be nowhere
near the amount required to generate the kind of recombination heat you
are suggesting.

Handwaving about special active surface states can not change the clear
intellectual bankruptcy of your hypothesis.

All the more reason to try www.bovik.org/codeposition/best.gif -- the
cells (cathode, anode, electrolyte compounds, etc.) are identical, and
only the isotope of hydrogen in the water solvent and electrolyte
molarity is different (and only slightly different for the molarity.)

Which papers are you referring to, and what exactly did they say about
their authors' volume measurement techniques?

100 ml volumetric pipets costing $20 are accurate to +/- 0.08 ml:

  http://www.voigtglobal.com/pipets.htm

Best wishes,
James


author: Gordon D. Pusch

subject: Re: Shanahan's gambit

text:
<[email]> writes:

Also, due the fact that, to a first approximation, the strong interaction
is known to be symmetric wrt isospin reversal (i.e., exchange of neutron
and proton number).  Hence, the cross-sections for D + D --> T + p and
D + D --> He3 + n differ only by corrections due to the coulomb force
and the small mass difference of protons and neutrons.

Agreed.

-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'


subject: Re: Shanahan's gambit

text:
Richard Schultz wrote, in reply to my comments:

As in, "muons are nearly three orders of magnitude more massive than the
electrons present in PdD."  Muon-catalyzed fusion is completely different
in terms of kinetics than PdD fusion.  I am not suprised that fusion
involving such a massive catalyst has products similar to plasma fusion.

Futhermore, total collision energy isn't the same thing as rotational
kinetic energy, angular momentum, which is likely to be dwarfed by the
power of strong force binding.

So, how about those D.o.E. physicists?  Need a few more months?

Best wishes,
James


subject: Re: Shanahan's gambit

text:
James Salsman <[email]> wrote in message news:<c28K9.854$[email]>...

So, I guess I should disappear and study your proposals then...

However, given my inability to supply an intellectually solvent
hypothesis after years of detailed study and one theoretical
publication, I wouldn't hold my breath on me coming up with
something if I were you.

Have a good holiday season.

---
Kirk Shanahan   {My opinions...noone else's}


subject: Re: Shanahan's gambit

text:
In article <0iEJ9.776$[email]>, James Salsman <[email]> wrote:

: As in, "muons are nearly three orders of magnitude more massive than the
: electrons present in PdD."  Muon-catalyzed fusion is completely different
: in terms of kinetics than PdD fusion.

And your evidence for this is. . .?

: Futhermore, total collision energy isn't the same thing as rotational
: kinetic energy, angular momentum, which is likely to be dwarfed by the
: power of strong force binding.

I suggest that you consult a good book on collision dynamics.  You might
learn something.  (You might want to look up terms like "impact parameter.")
Also note that by your own admission, the angular momentum, which you claim
is the deciding factor in the branching ratio, is minuscule compared to
the primary process.  That's not a good sign for your hypothesis.

-----
Richard Schultz                              [email]
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
   -- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <[email]>


author: Bruce Stemplewski

subject: Anyone using Overlapped IO to read the USB port on Garmin Protocol?

text:
In many models of Garmin, when PVT is turned on, the GPS does not send
data if it does not have a fix.  This presents a problem with USB
because DeviceIoContol does not return unless bytes are received.  In
other words in waits forever.  SetCommTimeouts does not appear to work
with DeviceIoControl.

So I tried implementing Overlapped I/O.  The problem is that
WaitForSingleObject is not waiting for a complete 64 byte packet before
returning.  In other words the packet is short.  The first time
DeviceIOCOntrol is called to read the product data it returns 14 bytes
(at least on my system) but remember it should return 64 bytes.

No problem because the size of the remaining data is returned in these
bytes.So we should be able to keep reading DeviceIOControl until the
proper number of bytes is satisfied.

But there is a problem.  As I said the first time DeviceIoControl is
called only 14 bytes are returned.  The next time DeviceIoControl is
called 50 bytes are missing (64 - 14 = 50).  I believe that subsequent
calls to DeviceIoControl would have short packets with loss of data.

Has anyone implemented overlapped I/O on USB?

My code for reading the DeviceIoControl is shown below:

DWORD Result;
	ResetEvent(hEventObject);
	if
(!::DeviceIoControl(m_hComPort,dwIoControlCode,lpInBuffer,nInBufferSize,lpOutBuffer,nOutBufferSize,lpBytesReturned,&HIDOverlapped))
	{
		DWORD dwError=GetLastError();
		if (dwError==ERROR_IO_PENDING)
		{

			OutputDebugString("Waiting\n");
			Result = WaitForSingleObject(hEventObject,6000);
			if (Result != WAIT_OBJECT_0)
			{

				if (m_bLoggingOn)
					fprintf(f,"Throwing exception File = %s  Line =
%d\n",__FILE__,__LINE__);

				throw CGarminGpsException(GX_ERR_COM_NO_RESPONSE,FALSE,0);

			}

		}
		else
		{
			long l = GetLastError();

			if (m_bLoggingOn)
			{
				fprintf(f,"Throwing exception File = %s  Line =
%d\n",__FILE__,__LINE__);
				fflush(f);
			}

			throw CGarminGpsException(GX_ERR_COM_OPEN,TRUE,l);
		}

	}
	else
		OutputDebugString("No need to wait.\n");


author: Tim Hogard

subject: Re: Anyone using Overlapped IO to read the USB port on Garmin Protocol?

text:
Bruce Stemplewski ([email]) wrote:
: In many models of Garmin, when PVT is turned on, the GPS does not send
: data if it does not have a fix.  This presents a problem with USB
: because DeviceIoContol does not return unless bytes are received.  In
: other words in waits forever.  SetCommTimeouts does not appear to work
: with DeviceIoControl.
It does return 0 byte packets when you read from it though.
I've been playing with the device for a while under mac os X and
it seems that Garmin took some shortcuts with the usb spec and is
being worked out.

: So I tried implementing Overlapped I/O.  The problem is that
: WaitForSingleObject is not waiting for a complete 64 byte packet before
: returning.  In other words the packet is short.  The first time
: DeviceIOCOntrol is called to read the product data it returns 14 bytes
: (at least on my system) but remember it should return 64 bytes.
Yes, it sometimes returns odd length things.  Once garmin fix the software,
expect it to change.  It also tends to return the wrong size on the
confgigure descriptor as well.

-tim
http://web.abnormal.com


author: Keith Sheppard

text:
That's what overlapped IO is all about.  It returns whatever is available at
the time and then returns to let your application get on with other stuff.

No.  There is still an IO call out looking for the "missing" bytes.  You
need to keep calling GetOverlappedResult periodically, to see when they
arrive.

I started out using overlapped I/O for both USB and COM port communications
with Garmin GPS units.  I rapidly ran into problems with older windows
versions not doing overlapped COM access properly then suddenly it occurred
to me.  Why am I doing this?  My Garmin I/O is all done from a separate
thread anyway (as per Garmin's recommendation) so why do I need the hassle
of asynchronous I/O?  The answer was that I didn't.  If I/O calls block, but
they are running in a background thread anyway, why should I care?

Actually, there was still a problem.  If I called DeviceIOControl when there
was no input expected from the device then my background thread blocked so I
couldn't send any output to the device (trying to do the input and output
from separate threads was a non starter).

The answer to that one was surprisingly simple.  The device doesn't send
unsolicited data.  Unless you are expecting to hear from it, don't pick up
the phone.  I only turn on my "listener" after starting a new session or
after sending ID_PRODUCT_REQUEST or an ID_COMMAND which expects a response.
I turn off my listener after sending CID_ABORT_TRANSFER; after receiving
PT_TRANSPORT_LAYER with packet ID=TLPID_SESSION_STARTED; after receiving
ID_PROTOCOL_ARRAY or ID_TRANSFER_COMPLETE - all of which mark the end of a
communication.

Regards
Keith (author of MapMan).


text:
I got things to work by adding a call to GetOverlappedResult.

I'm not sure why I should have to do this.

DWORD dwResult;

	BOOL bComplete =
::DeviceIoControl(m_hComPort,dwIoControlCode,lpInBuffer,nInBufferSize,lpOutBuffer,nOutBufferSize,lpBytesReturned,&HIDOverlapped);

	if (!bComplete)
	{
		DWORD dwError=GetLastError();
		if (dwError==ERROR_IO_PENDING)
		{

			dwResult = WaitForSingleObject(hEventObject,6000);
			if (dwResult != WAIT_OBJECT_0)
			{

				if (m_bLoggingOn)
					fprintf(f,"Throwing exception File = %s  Line =
%d\n",__FILE__,__LINE__);

				throw CGarminGpsException(GX_ERR_COM_NO_RESPONSE,FALSE,0);

			}

			GetOverlappedResult(m_hComPort,&HIDOverlapped,lpBytesReturned,TRUE);

		}
		else
		{
			long l = GetLastError();

			if (m_bLoggingOn)
			{
				fprintf(f,"Throwing exception File = %s  Line =
%d\n",__FILE__,__LINE__);
				fflush(f);
			}

			throw CGarminGpsException(GX_ERR_COM_OPEN,TRUE,l);
		}

	}


author: David Farber

subject: Proton WT-3650 intermittently bright crt.

text:
This Proton WT-3650 television is about eleven years old. The CRT has a 16X9
aspect ratio. The symptom was that the power relay would just click, click,
click, upon power on. I found and replaced two shorted diodes in the
switching power supply. I also checked for cold solder joints and bad caps.
None of the caps was even close to being out of spec.

Now the picture and sound work fine but occasionally there will be a bright
flash on the screen. As it warms up, it gets worse. Sometimes the picture
will just come on as though the screen voltage were turned way up and you'll
see retrace lines. I've tapped and jiggled all the boards but can't seem to
find anything that will make the problem appear or disappear (depending on
which state it is in) with a tap of a screwdriver.

Does this sound more like a CRT problem, an intermittent flyback, or
something else?

Thanks for your reply.


author: Art

subject: Re: Proton WT-3650 intermittently bright crt.

text:
What effect do you get when tapping lightly on the CRT neck or on the actual
CRT Board? Possible intermittant short within the CRT or maybe just falty
connections on the CRT Drive Board.
"David Farber" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


text:
picture
on

"Art" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
actual

No change when tapping the CRT or drive board. I checked the G2 screen
voltage and when the picture is good, it's about 340 volts, when it goes
bright, the voltage drops to about 300 volts. I first checked the voltage
with my x1K probe because I didn't know how off this measurement was going
to be. Then when I switched to my regular probes, it measured less than half
that voltage, about 140 volts. I checked the calibration of the x1K probe
and it was accurate to 100 volts which of course makes comparing these
readings almost meaningless. More interesting than the actual numbers is
that when using the regular probes, the screen got brighter just by checking
the G2 voltage. So this must be a very high impedance source or maybe this
is an indication of what is wrong.

Thanks for your reply.


text:
"David Farber" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
a
seem
(depending
falty
half
checking

The problem turned out to be an intermittent NPN regulator transistor, Q901,
BC547. It is located on the CRT board. It supplies a low voltage to the
emitters of the RGB drive transistors. The voltage drop across the B-E
junction went from .6 volts to .9 volts and that's what tipped me off.


subject: Re: Aeronautical misconceptions

text:
In article <[email]>, [email] (Michael Sierchio) writes:
  I plan on getting my degree in Aerospace Eng. and before I do so, I feel that
I should know why those long flat things on the sides of aircraft work.  Since
you have just shot down the explanation of lift that every aerodynamics book I
have ever had the pleasure of reading gives, I am left with a big question.
  But now, I present a defense of this "classic" explanation of lift, based on
some observations and theories of my own.
  I have observed: That a ping-pong ball, when placed upon an upward directed
stream of air (such as that produced by a hair dryer) will "hover" at the
approximate center of this stream.
  Now, tell me if I'm wrong.  The ball (spherical) remains at the center of
this stream , rather than "falling" off the edge, because the stream of air is
made of concentric layers (like a cylindrical onion) of different-velocity
streams, the highest velocity being at the center of the stream and, due to
increasing friction with other air molecules, decreasing as one moves outward.
  As the hovering sphere begins to move towards the outside of the stream-
cylinder (or approximate cylinder), it crosses through these different-velocity
regions.  Consequently, the half of the sphere that is facing, and heading
toward, the outside of the stream cylinder is acted on by a lower-velocity
layer of air than is the opposite, more central side.
  And, in complete accordance with the Bernoulli principle "the faster air
exerts less pressure" and the ball is drawn to, and remains, in the center of
the stream.
  I can only conclude that, with respect to air velocity, the ball appears
not as a symmetrical sphere, but as an airfoil, "flying" to the center of the
stream.
  Does this not support the theory that it is differing air velocities over a
wing which produce lift?  Or is this even the issue in question?
  I would very much appreciate an explanation of Lift, or any criticism.


author: Small Systems Solutions

subject: Re: Aeronautical misconceptions

text:
The misconception is that lift is *caused* by the curvature of the
airfoil, or that the Bernoulli effect is responsible for lift.  As I
said, a flat piece of cardboard will provide lift, if it has an angle
of attack. A properly shaped airfoil has the advantage of reduced drag
while providing lift.

The reduced pressure above the surface of an airfoil is caused by the
angle of attack.  The Bernoulli effect describes the propensity of a
fluid to adhere to the surface -- squirt a garden hose at a wall of
your house at a sufficiently low angle, and the flow will be entrained
rather than "reflected". It also describes the relationship between
pressure and velocity. In short,  it describes some of the epiphenomena
of lift, but not what creates lift.


subject: Re: Aeronautical misconceptions

text:
In article <[email]> [email] writes:

The fallacy is that you are assuming causality.  Properly stated, it is
"the air that exerts less pressure that travels faster."


subject: Re: Aeronautical misconceptions

text:
In article <7![email]> [email] (Small Systems Solutions) writes:

Be careful what you say. These are not misconceptions. They may not be
intuitive explanations, or very complete explanations, but they are
definitely true. Lift IS caused by the curvature of the airfoil. Bernoulli
DOES account for 100% of lift.  However the stuff about the length along the
top vs the length along the bottom is pure hogwash.

Good point. (But not enough to make a myth.)


author: Bluejay Adametz

subject: Re: Aeronautical misconceptions

text:
This whole thread is a misconception. Sorry, but you've all got this
production-of-lift thing totally wrong.

As any aircraft owner can tell you, the thing that creates lift has
nothing to do with airflows or Bernoulli or any of that junk. It's
*money* that creates lift.

:)
						- Bluejay Adametz
						  AA-5B N45210


author: Gary A. Braun

subject: Re: Aeronautical misconceptions

text:
In article <[email]> [email] ()
writes:
writes:

I think you've all got it wrong.  Lift is a force and Force = Mass x
Acceleration.  A wing is really a momentum generator, accelerating air (mass)
downward to produce a force in the opposite direction.  It doesn't matter
whether the airfoil is flat or not (although it will affect the efficiency).

======================
Gary A. Braun
[email]
======================


author: Johnny

subject: French & English language partnering

text:
.

Bilingual Forum :  English <=> French

French speakers seek English speakers (and vice versa)
for dialogue and communication by text messages, voice,
Webcam, telephony, instant messaging, chat room,
voice mail and live video.

- find a language partner
- make life-long friendships
- learn a foreign language
- help others learn your language

\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\

A good story...well-written, interesting !
A personal practical guide for learning French...

HOW I LEARNED FRENCH IN 10 MONTHS

Go to :

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/29/15258/287/

"...this article may be useful (to some), as I go into full
detail describing the techniques and methods I used.
Or, at the very least, read and be amused."

** Written by a FrenchEnglishTutor group member who scored
	"advanced" on Canadian immigration exams,
	after just 10 months of studying the French language

J O I N

Join the FrenchEnglishTutor [FET] yahoogroup online, at :

=> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FrenchEnglishTutor

Or, join  the FrenchEnglishTutor [FET] yahoogroup by E-mail

Send a blank E-mail message to :

=> FrenchEnglishTutor-SUBscribe AT yahoogroups.com

(Be sure to reply to the CONFIRM REQUEST when it arrives moments later)

Our Goal / Purpose :

French-speakers and English-speakers worldwide -- eager to help one
another  with their languages, and eager to learn or improve
themselves in the other language -- talk, chat, and discuss LIVE
by free telephony, Instant Messaging, Webcam, and in the private
chat room of FET.

Communicate / dialogue by text messages, by voice...and even by live vidï¿½o.

Beginners to advanced....

Welcome !

Bienvenue !

Read personal messages posted by group members :

=> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FrenchEnglishTutor/messages

More info :

English :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FrenchEnglishTutor/message/4027

French :
http://www.smartgroups.com/vault/update/CHAT.txt

\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\__\


author: Travers Naran

subject: Re: French & English language partnering

text:
Johnny wrote off-topic to say:

"I wish I was allowed to hurt spammers."

How do I say that in Japanese?  Would I use ーように or -がいいなぁ。。。?


author: Bart Mathias

text:
Travers Naran wrote:

I've always said スパマーを痛ませてもらえたらいいがなあ, but my Japanese
is always wrong.

Bart


author: chance

text:
"Travers Naran" <[email]> wrote

Korewa ii.=this is good.
Korewa iiga.=This is good, though.
Minus 'ga', the sentence would likely be
a bit 'straightforward', wouldn't it?


author: Cindy

text:
Travers Naran wrote:

My understanding is that the が above in the Bart's sentence is
equivalent to a "but".  It doesn't change the meaning a lot.  The が can
stay there; no problem.

I'd rather worry about  スパマーを痛ませてもらえたら.  I would translate ...

スパマーを懲らしめる許可をもらえたらなあ。（直訳→つまらん）

スパマーを懲らしめてやりたいぜ！　（だんだん現実に近づいて・・・）

スパミングする奴はみんなぶっ殺したる！　（やっと普通になりました）


author: Maciej Katafiasz

text:
On day Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:19:53 -0600 looked the Lord upon his prophet,
and the prophet was numbered among those called Cindy. And thus spake the
prophet:

What exactly does 殺したる mean here? I mean -したる, does it come
from -したい somehow? I can't quite fit it to any pattern I know.


text:
Cindy wrote:

But your Japanese is always right.  You have an unfair advantage!  (I
should have thought of 懲らす anyway.  <sigh>)

Bart


text:
Bart Mathias wrote:

私だってへたな英語で恥の上塗りやっていますから、お互い様ですよ。ところ
で、「懲らしめる」は「こらしめる」ですよ。


text:
Cindy wrote:

I warn't doing no 恥 at all about スパマーを痛ませてもらえたら.  But
it's more than 上塗り with that fantastic slip!

Maybe a present for Jeff.  I don't remember noticing before, but that's
presumably 凝ら・しめる (= 凝ら・せる).

Bart


text:
Bart Mathias wrote:

「スパマーを痛ませてもらえたら」なんて日本語じゃないですよ。「スパマーを
痛めつけてやれたらなあ」はまあまあだけど・・・なんか女の腐ったのみたい
な・・・やっぱり「ぶっ殺す」だね。


text:
"Bart Mathias" <[email]>
wrote

私だってへたな英語で恥の上塗りやっていますから、お互い様ですよ。ところ
スパマーを痛ませてもらえたら.  But
fantastic slip!

’懲らす’でいかんだったんですか。


text:
Cindy wrote:

それくらいは分かっておりますが、わたしの日本語じゃない日本語を一々恥じる
余裕なんかないッすよ！

Bあrt


text:
chance wrote:

下記のように辞書にもあるけど、

こら・す 2 【懲らす】

（動サ五［四］）
こらしめる。
「醜面(すべた)を当てがつて―・してやるが好い/社会百面相（魯庵）」

「こらす」と読んだり、使う時はとても特殊な時だけですから、知っていても、
忘れた方が良いですよ。


text:
Bart Mathias wrote:

その根性気に入った！　特に日本語が素晴らしい！　パーフェクト！　小さいカ
タカナの「ッ」も活き活きしておもしろい！

ところで、こんなにパーフェクトな日本語を書く人がなんで「スパマー
を・・・」なんて書いちゃうんですか？　（こういう質問をすることを「つっこ
む」という）


text:
"Cindy" <[email]> wrote

無慮4100個の文例が懲らすを使って
いるのをＧｏｏｇｌｅがあげておるのでして
そういってもかまいませんか。

幼稚園生がかわしそうな
ｃｋ


text:
Cindy wrote:

わたしの日本語が日本語じゃなくないものになる、ごく稀なことは、本の偶然で
すよ。実をいえば、「恥じる余裕」にするか「恥じてる余裕」にするか少々なや
んだあげく短い方にしただけです。

ときに、この報告をするのをわすれてしまいました。先日、地元の新聞に、
Japanese Cultural Centerとかいう会があるfund-raising activity (金を上げ
るしわざ？)に成功して次のような広告をねせました。大きな文字で、

Thank You
Mahalo
Domoo Arigato

とありました。

Bart


author: Marc Adler

text:
Bart Mathiasek idatzi du 1/18/2005 4:11 PM:

　　　　　　　　　　　　＾＾＾＾＾＾
　　　　　　　　　　　　　ワオ！

こんな言い方、形而上学者でもない限り、離解できないと思う。

ドムーアリガト

Marc


text:
Bart Mathias wrote:

余裕もぴったりだけど、「そんな恥じてる暇なんかありませんよ！」なんて効果
的ですよ。

金を巻き上げることね。（fund-raising)　(evil smile)

ずいぶん儲かったな。


text:
Cindy wrote:

また、のせもしました。

大きな文字で、

そでしゃろね、あんなにうれしゅなって！

Bart


text:
chance wrote:

タイプミスだと思ったのですけど、それじゃ、「幼稚園生がかわしそうな」は何
を受けて述べられているのですか？


author: Ron Peterson

subject: Re: Wall Streeters attack Alternative Energy

text:
On Dec 11, 10:08 am, Don Lancaster <[email]> wrote:

That's good. Rankine temperature ranges are off a little.


author: [redacted]

text:
On Dec 7, 7:52 pm, [email] wrote:

My friend, I too decry both the Wall Street interests who make up
scenarios to their own advantage, but at the same time those clueless
people that believe their could be a simple solar, wind, tidal, or
hydrogen solution to the issue. Not one of the advocates on either
side of the coin have sufficient scientific knowledge under their
belts to make a credible argument either way. That's a fact that you
can safely take to the bank.

The financial sorts are blinded by Christmas dreams of accumulating
great personal wealt, while the 'Tree huggers' and proponents of
alternative energy lack the knowledge to make an informed judgement.
So where do we go from here?  A reasonable person might turn to the
hard science for a solution, but the scientific solution will be
unattractive to both sides, hence it is being ignored.

Most scientist realize that that have been employed for the past 500
or more years are becoming increasingly scarce (oil, gas, coal, and
wood).  Scientists argue about the details, but most are in agreement.
There is only one source of new energy discovered during the past 100
years that has a potential to solve the problem, and that is the
discovery of uranium fission discovered by (surprisingly) two German
chemists (Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman) back in 1938. Not to overlook
the monumental contributions made by a woman, Lise Meitner.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blnuclearfission.htm

Curiously, 1938 is the year that I was born.  Now when all of the
current but ill studied alternative energy proposals fail, I will
venture a prediction that within 75 years, the primary energy sources
utilized in the US will be hydroelectric and nuclear generated
electricity. Automobile by then will be entirely electric, and are
many of our current trains are today. The US government feeds a bit of
seed money into more politically popular issues, but for personal
transporation, the smart money is devoted to a government project
called IVHS, look it up.

Still, when the dust settles. I will no longer be alive, but I believe
that in confidence I can predict the eventual outcome.

Harry C.


author: Don Lancaster

text:
[email] wrote:

ultimately, pv makes more sense than nuclear in that it does not upset
the heat budget of the planet.

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/nrglect2.pdf


author: Alain Martin

subject: What about water or ice damaged on STS-107?

text:
Looking at some old documentation on past shuttle flights and doing
some analysis of "what if" scenarios, I came to the following possible
conclusions:

    1) Over the past ~10 years, most shuttle flights were either flight
to space station( mir and ISS) or satellite repair or launch( HST,
CHANDRA, etc..). I do not recall a mission where 7 astronauts spend 16
days in orbit in the shuttle with a blue and red team working 24 hours a
day. This could create some problems that we will review later.
    2) This mission was called by NASA a perfect mission so far before 1
Feb 2003. I do not think so. Few days into the mission, there was a
problem with the air conditioning(dehumidifier) with the spacelab unit .
For a number of days, the shuttle system was diverted to provide
temperature and humidity control to the spacelab. The problem was
eventually fixed a few days before mission end. On the last packing day
of the mission, the commander was asked to look for possible water leak
around the spacelab dehumidifier: he did not found any.

    In the beginning of shuttle flight, there were problems with waste
water dump which was sometime freezing on the output vent nozzle which
is located on the left side of the shuttle cabin as far as I can
understand from the documentation I read. On mission STS 41D a big
icicle, almost 1 meter long, formed on that nozzle . At that time, the
canadarm was used to knocked if off before reentry due to fear among
controller of damaging the tiles if this was going to break during
deorbit, where the ice would possibly hit  the leading left edge of the
wing at a certain pitch angle of deorbit. There was a design change made
to add a heater to melt any ice at that port for later flight and it was
agreed to monitor any further waste water dump in the future.

    About the first point above, we have 7 persons using the toilet and
any washing and cleaning using a little water each time. Even though I
do not have confirmation of this, I do think that some waste water was
dumped before the end of the mission to avoid bringing useless cargo
back to earth. On space station mission, they tranfer a lot of water to
the space station including fuel cell generated water. I do not know
what they do with waste (toilet) water during these flights.

     The second point is more interesting.  Since the commander did not
locate any water leak around the spacelab during his inspection, where
did that water go? Because I think that they said that the problem was a
water leak which they seal with tape. Notice that the spacelab is
located in the cargo bay. Could that lost water have escape outside the
scapelab and reach the belly of the spacecraft and froze in place,
breaking the integrity of the shuttle? Another interesting point is that
the shuttle cooling(dehumidifying) system was quite overworked and they
must have dispose of a lot of water coming from that system during the
flight.

    Thanks for reading,
Alain


author: Brian Thorn

subject: Re: What about water or ice damaged on STS-107?

text:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:52:53 -0500, Alain Martin
<[email]> wrote:

All of the Extended Duration Orbiter missions flew solo for 13 to 18
days, most with seven crew.

STS-50 Columbia, Spacelab USML-1
STS-58 Columbia, Spacelab Life Sciences 2
STS-62 Columbia, USMP-1
STS-65 Columbia, Spacelab IML-2
STS-67 Endeavour, Spacelab ASTRO-2
STS-73 Columbia, Spacelab USML-2
STS-75 Columbia, USMP-2
STS-80 Columbia, Wake Shield 3, ORFEUS
STS-94 Columbia, Spacelab MSL-1 Reflight
STS-87 Columbia, USMP-3, Spartan
STS-90 Columbia, Spacelab NEUROLAB

Brian


author: Jorge R. Frank

text:
Alain Martin <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

You don't recall STS-65, 67, 73, 90 and 94?

Odd, I recall them fine. And that's just in the last 10 years.

They dump it.

No.  The leak was inside the pressure hull of the Spacehab.  Although the
crew could not isolate the leak, they did photograph the water, and it was
definitely *inside* the cabin.  There's no way it could have gotten
outside.


author: Axel Boldt

subject: Little Maple Quiz

text:
Hi there!

Can you imagine the preceding line of the following Maple-session?

                                       t
                                     t := 4
                                       t
                                     string
                                       1

Bye,
  Axel.


author: Arthur Rubin

subject: Re: Little Maple Quiz

text:
In <[email]> [email] (Axel Boldt) writes:

I don't know Maple but it certainly looks like:

s := "t"

or something to that effect.


author: Dominik Gruntz

subject: Re: Little Maple Quiz

text:
In <[email]> [email] (Axel Boldt) writes:

I have the folowing solution:

Anyone anything shorter?

- Dominik


author: Philip Santas

subject: Re: Little Maple Quiz

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Dominik Gruntz) writes:

Why is
  s:= <t||t>();
not accepted?
Obviously the usage of x in this example complicates the semantics,
(and I suspect the implementation, since the function looks
for an argument which is not found and has to resolve the conflict).

What about this one:
  a:=proc() local t; t end ();

It is syntactically longer, but only 2 symbols are used.
Any comments?

Philip Santas

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
email: [email]				 Philip Santas
Mail: Dept. Informatik				Department of Computer Science
      ETH-Zentrum			  Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
      CH-8092 Zurich				       Zurich, Switzerland
      Switzerland
Phone: +41-1-2547391


author: Julien Cassaigne

subject: Re: Little Maple Quiz

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Philip Santas) writes:

It should be accepted according to the help for the functional operators;
however on my version of Maple (MapleV on Sun4) the expression <t||t> is
interpreted as <t|t|t> which yields an error. Is it a bug or just an
ill-documented feature ?

Anyway, the solution I found for this quiz used a different trick; it's a
bit longer and uses one more variable:

s:=t; alias(t=u);

	Julien.


author: Keith O. Geddes

subject: Re: Little Maple Quiz

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Julien Cassaigne) writes:

Yes, it would appear that the help page  ?operators[functional]
is incorrect on the case  < result | | localvars > .
The unspecified formal parameters are deduced to be the indeterminates
appearing in the first argument, just as in the case  < result > .

However, this angle-bracket notation is not the preferred notation.
The arrow notation introduced in Maple V is recommended.
What you want to achieve is easily achieved using the arrow notation,
namely:

===========================================================================
    |\^/|      MAPLE V
._|\|   |/|_.  Copyright (c) 1981-1990 by the University of Waterloo.
 \  MAPLE  /   All rights reserved.  MAPLE is a registered trademark of
 <____ ____>   Waterloo Maple Software.
      |        Type ? for help.

                             s := () -> local t; t

                                       t

                                     t - t

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

The latter expression shows that the t which was returned from s();
is not the same as the global name t.


author: Peter Alaca

subject: Re: Why did gothic cathedral building stop?

text:
Uwe Mï¿½ller <[email] > wrote:

Here you will find information about the development
of the Dutch medieval churches in Elst (on top of two
Gallo-Roman temples) and Brunssum.
http://www.esnips.com/web/Dutch-churches

(sci.archaeology added)


author: prd

text:
In sci.archaeology message  news:45a6aa50$0$18663$[email]
by "Peter Alaca" <[email]>  . . . :

Watered down gothic style churches were still being
built in the U.S. until the 1950's. The reason gothic
church building stopped in the U.S. at least in my
experience in San Antonio, is that they required european
stone masons that command increasingly higher wages.
In 1980 we had an ornate facade on a C. 1920 building
that needed to be repaired, we could not find a single
qualified mason in San Antonio, and we were given
referals to a mason in Italy, finally we found a group
of men in Mexico that were trained in the art and they
were hired and brought to the U.S. and believe it or
not payed about 25$ per hour to do the work, provided room
board and food, and a ride back to Mexico when the work
was done.
  This may be a somewhat unique experience in the South
because San Antonio has alot of cement stone facade
building, the SWB building has a gothic facade on the front
ot it as well as many buildings within a certain period.
It is almost impossible to demolish these old buildings
according to the historical code so you have to go out
and find people who know the stones, the craft, and
are willing to travel, pay 'em lots of dollars.

  I would say the cost of construction per/area was higher
for gothic style buildings and when newer and more modern
construction techiques (such as reinforced concreted and girder
construction) come along these massive structures were abandoned.
Nobody wants to do this type of work anymore, anyway.


text:
prd <[email] > wrote:

You are talking about Neo-Gothic.
Many churches (and secular buidlings) overhere were
built, rebuilt or restyled in that style during the late 19th
early 20th c. Often the result was awful.
Luckily many are demolished or restored in the original
style since.


text:
In sci.archaeology message  news:eo8gib$ijt$[email] by "Uwe Mï¿½ller"
<[email]>  . . . :

In the year 1311 work was finished on the Lincoln Cathedral,
a cathedral in the Early English gothic style of architecture
and somewhere about that time is surpassed the giza pyramids
as the tallest manmade struncture in the world. The characteristics
of this structure epitomized gothic archetecture, while not
near as massive as the giza pyramids, weight efficiency was
not a hall mark of gothic buildings.

http://www.lincolncathedral.com/

"
After more damage caused by the earthquake of 1185, a major reconstruction
of the cathedral began.  Rebuilding started at the east end with an apse
and five radiating chapels.  The nave was built during the first half of
the 13th century in the Early English Gothic style.  Technological advances
in architecture at this time made the most of pointed arches, flying
buttresses and ribbed vaulting to allow larger windows.  The double
arcading (syncopated arcading) along the outer walls of the choir aisles is
an unusual example of the Early English style.  Against the wall are arches
in relief with a second layer in front giving the illusion of a passageway
along the wall.  The remains of the Norman west end were incorporated into
the Gothic west front we see today.

The collapse of the central tower in the 1230s prompted another rebuilding
of the east end. A suitable shrine was needed for St. Hugh Bishop of
Lincoln and so the Angel Choir was built.   This used high arches, fine,
detailed carvings and huge expanses of stained glass to give an impression
of light and richness.  The European-style apse was extended into a Celtic-
influenced square ended chancel.

In the 14th century the central tower was raised and topped with a lead-
covered spire, making it the tallest building in Europe.  The Choir Screen
was also added at this time.  Used then as a pulpit, it is in the Decorated
style of dense, intricate carvings which would have been brightly painted.
"

  There were several principle reasons for the gothic
scope, namely elevated and wide windows and a tendancy for
elevated central rooms with fairly wide spans. Often the spans
were at the mercy of timbers in the surrounding regions that
were long enough and strong enough to support the weight, over
time these beams warped and pushed the load bearing outer walls
outward. Later wood was replaced by stone as many vaults
on early churches caught on fire, and the stone added more weight
to the load bearing outer columns. The addition of the stone or
brick vaults led for the need for improved craftsmen and techniques
to prevent collapse. The new stone braces roof covered vaults were
essentially an evolution of the barrel vault
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_%28architecture%29#Barrel_vault

 Much improvements
were made to enhance the stability of these elevated roofs
covering the cathedrals but the more they were elevated the more
the roofs tended to pry the wall apart, by placing elevated
windows the weight was spread to columns futher straining
these structures. To compensate for this semi-arches known
as flying buttresses were added to brace these pillars, and the
pillars themselves were made more massive.
  The columns themselves were carved in pieces and assembled
into position a monumental task in itself, the gothic style evolved
into arched colums in which the roof ribs were fed from column
clusters replacing massive columns, somewhat more weight efficient
but no-where near modern construction.
  The key to gothic cathedrals lies in the transition from the columns
(or clusters thereof) to the ribbing that forms the ceiling, while these
look continuous to us they are made of many sections, and the movement of
a few cms of any of the supporting arches could be catastropic.
The column clusters themselves are often part of the bracing, with a stair
step of arches leading to the central arch or cloisters built under
the flying butresses, converted structure neccesities into part of the
function and artistry of the building.
  To add to the weight issues false vaults or layered vaults were added
on top the stonemasonry to protect it from the elements, these were
generally light weight.

  How does one contrast these structures with modern structures.
One common element for modern structure is the idea of the shell, the
exterior of the building minus its vaneer = structure. No better
example of this comes to mind is the world trade center buildings
with a massive number of exterior columns to lower weight integrated
to a matrix of spaning beams and central supports. Typically however
there is a vertically array of evenly spaced beams that are braced
at each floor. The interior walls are built to abutt or inside the
exterior columns and the veneer is generally exterior of the columns.
On each floor the plumbing is hung in the plenum spaces and the
space is defined by ceiling hung from the above floor or roof.

In general the exterior roof of a house is not supported by the
ceiling joists, which independeny support the ceiling veneer and
the attic deck, the roof is supported by bracing to interior walls.
Occasionally a roof is braced from an additional cross joints
that run across the ceiling joists and roof joists to spread
the weight of the braces, and to strengthen the ceiling joists.
The basic assumption for modern homes is a controlled sag in which
the roof settles, expands, contracts on bracing beams the connect
to the walls. This style of architect can allow for some fairly
large spaces with fairly light weight, the biggest in the new home
construction are composite concatamerizations of wood and glue
to provide fairly massive cross beams which can support a large
percentage of the weight in a single house.
  The decreased weight of construction decrease the strain on the
foundations and make building in some areas possible. Expanding
on this type of construction is the metal frame building in which
many modern cathedrals are made of. Vaulted strunctures built on
walls 6 inches in core thickness can span regions 2 or three times
that of europes greatest cathedrals. The key to these structures
is the metal lattice the forms the ceiling or roof structure, while
highly functional, these lattices are generally unsightly and covered
up with a veneer such as stucco or ceiling tiles. The disadvantage of
these lattices is similar to wood, while worthy when cool and dry,
elevated temperatures particularly during fires can cause the lattices
to warp and cave in. Flat roofs are particularly prone to leaking
and leaking on metal causes rust, and this shortens the life of these
spans. Many of the building codes are changing, in
the past they allowed 4" colums, basically a pin', to brace
the beams, and the beams basically warp off the columns and cave
in during fires. Now bigger beams are require with better attachements
at the top end of the column. History repeats itself.

  The major difference between a modern building and gothic archetecture
is this, the time to found and frame building is relatively fast, days
to weeks, and the detail construction is large astructural in nature,
everything you see is a facade in mose modern building, typically you
never see the core structure. In gothic architecture the majority
of work and time went into building the structure, which required both
structural performance and ascetics to be combined, and it is no
faulting the artisans because the painting and windows and various
aspects of decorating a church were time consuming, often 100s of years,
the framing of the building itself was a protracted undertaking.

  Many buildings want the gothic look but not the gothic architecture,
these buildings were built in many styles, in San Antonio there a buildings
with spanish colonial structures (limestone blocks and buttresses) various
types of veneers, centerblocks on concrete beams with metal lattice roofs
or in the old days treated pine roofs also with a variety of veneers. In
the 60s it progressed to prefabricated concrete buildings that could be
slapped up literally in hours from a truck and a crane, again, choose a
veneer. You wanna get that gothic look fake windows, fake buttress, and
a nice facade hiding a flat roof with tar and pebble on it. The key to
this is the 1920s is to find a finish stone mason to build the facade,
a completely different kind of mason than those that built gothic
cathedrals, but none this less possessing a skill often lacking.


text:
In sci.archaeology message  news:45a7c892$0$285$[email] by
"Peter Alaca" <[email]>  . . . :

I don't know if there is a single classic gothic cathedral
with period construction in the US.

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

Shows a mixture of gothic styles but just to show how bad things
are here:

"
Washington National Cathedral was completed on 29 September 1990 after
almost a century of planning and 83 years in construction. Its final design
shows a mix of influences from the various Gothic architectural styles of
the Middle Ages, identifiable in its pointed arches, flying buttresses,
ceiling vaulting, stained-glass windows, carved decorations in stone, and
by its three similar towers, two on the west front and one surmounting the
crossing.
"

And while technically gothic its considered gothic revival since it
does not represent a particular style from a particular region.
There are smaller churches with more ornate gothic style not nearly as
majestic, that were built in the 19th and 20th century. Almost
all of these conform to the gothic revival style that appears
in England in the 18th century.

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

We have a "few" of those.

BTW, most of the buildings I have seen and worked on would not even qualify
as Neo-gothic, more or less these are regional construction with gothic
facade.


author: erilar

text:
In article
<bAVph.376770$[email]>,
 prd <[email]> wrote:

Oh, really!  The US isn't OLD enough to have a "period" gothic
cathedral.  NEOgothic, perhaps.

There is an occasional neoromanesque church, too, even here in the
Midwest.  I've visited one that even looks pretty convincingly German
Romanesque INside, and I've seen another that looks rather convincing
from the outside, but haven't seen its interior.


text:
In sci.archaeology message  news:drache-05F6DD.14574913012007
@news.airstreamcomm.net by erilar <[email]>  . . . :

I said period construction not period gothic. It is possible to copy
a construction style, it just hasn't been done.

If you want to see churches made from the 'massive' old craft go
to the Southwest and Mexico, but they are not Romanesque.
The Epitome of romanesque is the Lisbon Cathedral from 1147. The period
is intermediate between Roman and later architecture.


author: Ross Clark

subject: Re: 36 American plants in the Pacific basin

text:
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

"It" was all over the Pacific, Yuri. But "it" was Tacca
leontopetaloides, which is not an American plant. I repeat: What
evidence do you have that the Caribbean arrowroot was present in
pre-European Polynesia?

Not recently.

This is amusing. Many a time Yuri has waxed eloquent about how valuable
the writings of older scholars are, and how we should not insist on
believing only the most up to date sources. Doesn't matter. I have a
range of quotations from various dates. I look forward to Yuri finding
reasons why the rest of them "don't count", either.
I'll put them in a separate post.

No, dimwit: The fact that they were on EI in the late 19th century is
not evidence that they were there 100 years earlier.

All visits by Europeans before the 1860s were brief.

I don't think you really miss my point, you just don't like it. You've
appealed to the idea of "collapse" to explain the absence of manioc and
achira from Forster's inventory of EI plants. But clearly a range of
crops was being cultivated in 1774. Why should just these two have
disappeared? In fact manioc is well known for surviving with an absolute
minimum of cultivation, so there seems to be no reason why war and
social disruption should have caused it to disappear, whereas sweet
potato, taro, etc. were still there.

So you are maintaining a staunch "never woulda-never coulda" position?

Yuri, the list of "useful plants" runs into the hundreds for any
Polynesian culture. As I've emphasized before, people tried all kinds of
things and remembered what seemed to be useful. If the Argemone plants
belong to the same genus, it's quite possible that they have similar
medicinal properties, and that these were discovered independently in
more than one place.

What's "them" here?

Ross Clark


author: Eric Stevens

text:
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:04:13 +1300, Ross Clark <[email]>
wrote:

And reading of Cook's journals will show that Cook made a practice of
delivering useful vegetables and plants (and even animals) around the
Pacific on his various voyages. However, I know of no record which
suggests he delivered any plant of recent South American origin.

Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.


author: STANCY

subject: solubility reaction

text:
hi,

I am trying to find out, how soluble gases will react with water? For
example, carbon dioxide will react with water to form carbonic acid.
How about other gases such as nitrogen, sulfur dioxide,oxygen,carbon
monoxide and other common gases in air. Will the gases react or just
dissolve.I tried searching on the internet for past one week.
Unfortunately, I couldn't locate the information. Could anyone please
help me on this matter? thank you very much.


author: Ian Gilmore

subject: Re: solubility reaction

text:
[email] (STANCY) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Why? SO2 yes the rest no. Don't look on the internet look at a book!
Ian


author: Uncle Al

subject: Re: solubility reaction

text:
STANCY wrote:

Calculate /_\G of reaction for each of the cases, then worry about
kinetics for the negative /_\G cases.


author: Mark P. Line

subject: Re: materialism sucks

text:
Phil Roberts, Jr. wrote:

The above reference indicates that I assume (for lack of any good reason
to think anything different) that the mind exists in the same reality as
material does. That makes me a monist: one reality. I do not, however,
believe that there is any useful way in which the mind can be explained
in terms of its material basis (quarks, leptons and carrier particles).
That makes me a non-materialist, because a materialist would claim that
a complete understanding of how matter works would allow us to
understand how the mind works, a position I see no reason to favor.

I have never advocated a return to behaviorism.

Who said anything about a physical property? How do you define "physical
property"?

What do you mean by "naturalism"?

No. I never said that, nor implied that. As a matter of fact, I've said
several things which would preclude such a belief. I've said that
there's no useful way to understand the mind in terms of matter/energy
processes.

The best way to understand the mind today is on its own terms, in order
to get a handle on objective description of the mind. Then we can worry
about trying to figure out how the mind might emerge from the CNS -- but
that has to do with understanding the mind in terms of _biological_
processes, not in terms of matter/energy processes. That will be a
while, though, in any event.

There can be no burden of proof for metaphysical postulates, on either
side.

You hang out in a _real_ scientific community and spend most of your
effort and energy doing _real_ science?

Until now, I wasn't sure if what I thought were thinly veiled personal
attacks were in fact such. Now I'm sure. This discussion is over.

-- Mark

(Mark P. Line  --  Bellevue, Washington  --  <[email]>)


author: John M. Orr

subject: Re: ARE SMART PEOPLE WEIRDER??

text:
In article <3eatk2$[email]>,

Best guess?  People at both ends of the normal curve of intelligence would
strike the bulk of people as weird or eccentric.  I've seen both- truely
bright people at universities and folks in places like the deep rural south.
I don't assume anything when dealing with either group.

******************************************************************************
|  "I know some good games we could play,"    *   John Orr
 | |  Said the Cat in the Hat.                                   *    Rogala &
Associates  | |  "I know some new tricks,"                               *
Oak Brook, IL             | |  Said the Cat in the Hat.
            *                                      | |  "A lot of good tricks,
I will show them to you.  *                                      | |  Your
mother will not mind at all if I do."          *
       |
******************************************************************************


author: Bob Ray

subject: Re: ARE SMART PEOPLE WEIRDER??

text:
[email] (John M. Orr) wrote:

   This seems like a good point to inject Louis Terman's classic
study on the characteristics of geniuses as I haven't seen it
mentioned and I think it bears on the original poster's question.

   Terman followed 1500 geniuses (Stanford-Binet IQ > 140) for
some time and found that, as compared with a random sample of
non-geniuses, they were taller, healthier, less prone to
mental problems and suicide, better looking, better athletes,
more popular, and had better eyesight.

    In spite of the popular stereotype I'm not aware of any
convincing evidence that geniuses are odd in any way other than
statistically.  It seems to me that the majority of the weird
people I've encountered in my life have been rather stupid and the
vast majority of very bright people I know are very well adjusted and
not particularly odd.

    The occasional weird genius is more memorable (like the uninjured
drunk in the car wreck) and this helps perpetuate the inaccurate
stereotype.

BR


author: Ibog

subject: Re: ARE SMART PEOPLE WEIRDER??

text: It appears that way to smart people, but everyone is weirder.


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: ARE SMART PEOPLE WEIRDER??

text:
An IQ score (Stanford Binet) >140 = "genius?"   Hmmm....  I know several
people whose IQ would be >140 and I wouldn't call them geniuses.  Extremely
bright, yes, but somehow "genius" connotes to me a spark of creativity that
is not always present in bright people and is often present in persons of
average IQ scores.

Just a thought.

Tim


author: Teresa Elizabeth Marrin

subject: Re: ARE SMART PEOPLE WEIRDER??

text:
Disclaimer:  I might have misinterpreted your post.  If so, I'm sorry.

  Ah, never mix genius with creativity.  As far as we can tell, and this is
debatable, we can measure genius.  But we can't measure creativity.  Sure, we can
talk about correlations (and that might be what you were talking about)...

  Your words lead me to believe that you think average people have creativity,
while bright people do not, while geniuses do!  Let me say this: a spark of
creativity that is not always present in bright people is also the same spark
of creativity that is not always present in geniuses and not always present in
average people.  In plain English, its just not always present in everyone, no
matter who you look at.  (Maybe creativity can be learned/developed, maybe its
a skill as opposed to a natural capacity.)

  But what I'm trying to say is that since creativity is a separate
entity, it cannot be calculated into the definition of genius.

Then again, what would I know.  My IQ is only 143. ;)

Elizabeth Marrin
[email]


author: Hugh LaMaster

subject: Re: ARE SMART PEOPLE WEIRDER??

text:
In article <3eql0k$[email]>,
[email] (Teresa Elizabeth Marrin) writes:

|>   Ah, never mix genius with creativity.  As far as we can tell, and this is
|> debatable, we can measure genius.

Really?  How do we measure it?   ;-)

[I assume that you are referring to "IQ".  I won't bore the
net by posting yet again references demonstrating that
"genius" and "high-IQ" are only somewhat related.  Unless
you *define* genius to be "high-IQ".

                                      But we can't measure creativity.  Sure, we can
|> talk about correlations (and that might be what you were talking about)...

OK.  Time for another query.  You can find one or two "creativity"
tests in print, but, how much success has there been in finding
more objective measures of creativity [other than, in my favorite
example, receiving a Nobel Prize] ?

... In plain English, [a spark of creativity is] just not always present in everyone, no
|> matter who you look at.  (Maybe creativity can be learned/developed, maybe its
|> a skill as opposed to a natural capacity.)

:

|>   But what I'm trying to say is that since creativity is a separate
|> entity, it cannot be calculated into the definition of genius.

I object to using the language this way.  Someone with a
high IQ may be extraordinarily clever, but to refer to
that person as a "genius" is a modern linguistic innovation
at odds with the earlier meaning, which DID imply creativity
as well as cleverness.  [This isn't exactly a grammar/usage
flame, because there is a serious side to making this
particular distinction.]  In other words [sound of dictionary
closing], never confuse genius, intelligence, creativity, and
cleverness.  There is a place for each word, and "high-IQ"
corresponds most closely with cleverness.


author: Technically Sweet

subject: Re: ARE SMART PEOPLE WEIRDER??

text:
I've been told that high intelligence (not IQ, that's school shit)
does seem to correlate with emotional instability;
it definitely corresponds with alienation.  Many of us did
not learn young how to relate to normal people.

For example: a core social skill is learning how to gauge
accurately exactly how much to "slow down" or "lower your
voltage" when dealing with someone, and then doing it, without
ever letting the person know what you're doing.  If they know,
they feel patronized.  Nobody ever told me this!  (I grew up
around people who are bright, but not like me, and they didn't
have the problem.)  Many never learn, or give up; they tend
to be really annoying to be around, and are very unhappy people.

About Terman's study: of course.  IQ 140 means you probably
got good intellectual nurturing at home from the beginning,
which strongly correlates with income.  I have noticed that
the affluent often breed for brains and looks.


author: Rich Travsky

subject: Re: Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem of Control

text:
I don't believe in atheists wrote:

And yet, amino acids are found in space. In fact, a bit more:

 http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20040920/spacesugar.html

 An eight-atom sugar called glycolaldehyde has been found residing at eight degrees
 above absolute zero in the Sagittarius B2 dust cloud, some 26,000 light-years from
 Earth.

 The sugar is just a few steps from ribose, an essential ingredient of DNA.
 ...
 "This sugar is a relatively complex molecule," said astronomy professor Edward
 Churchwell of the University of Wisconsin in Madison. "The whole issue of complex
 molecules in interstellar space was thought in the 1970s to be impossible."

 It was thought impossible because space between stars in our galaxy is rife with
 various forms of radiation that tend to knock apart large clumps of atoms.
 ...


author: Marc L.

text:
"I don't believe in atheists" <[email]> wrote in
news:xzwRe.119$[email]:

    	What a moron.


author: Tim vor der Brück

subject: linear regression problem?

text:
Hi, I have a question:

Can the following model

y= 1/(1+e^(ax+b))

be solved by linear regression?
a,b should be determined; x,y are contained in the data set

I could solve the equation for ax+b:

ax+b=ln((1/y)-1)

which looks like an ordinary linear regression model.

Thanks for any remarks,

Tim.


author: Anon.

subject: Re: linear regression problem?

text:
Tim vor der Brï¿½ck wrote:
I assume you mean can the model be fitted.  in that case, the answer is
yes it can, but it may not be the sensible way of doing it: it depend on
how you expect y to be distributed, and in particular if you expect
ln(y/(1-y)) to have a constant variance.

Incidentally, note that ln((1/y)-1) = -ln(y/(1-y)), and ln(y/(1-y)) is
well known in statistics as the logit transformation: it needs 0<y<1.

It may be that linear regression is the right thing to do, or it may be
that you need something else.  To know that, we would need to know the
context, and something about what the data are.

Bob


subject: Re: linear regression problem?

text:
Anon. wrote:
Hi, thank you for your reply.

Actually I do not quite understand, what do you mean with constant variance?

If I evaluate ln(y/(1-y)) on several y's I always get a single value
for the variance, do'nt I?

X is exponential or weibul-distributed, I did not test on Y yet.

I think I have to check for linear regression that the error of
ln(y/(1-y)) is normal distributed, haven't I?

Best regards,

Tim.


subject: Re: linear regression problem?

text:
Tim vor der Brï¿½ck wrote:
Yes.  the problem is that if y has a constant variance, then the
variance of ln(y/(1-y)) is not constant: it is smallest around 0.5.

Bob


author: Dale Carlson

subject: Re: USA Today: Columbia disaster stranded three men in space with 'no return ticket'

text:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:04:55 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote:

I just read up on the battleship. It was already over 30 years old
(albeit with a major refit) by the time it took part in the Pearl
Harbor attack. It was scuttled less than a year later. As far as
the former ozeki Kirishima goes, he's doing OK running a restaurant
across the street from the sumo stadium in Tokyo. Bastard charges
$50 US for a bowl of chanko nabe (the traditional sumo stew) and a
bottle of Asahi beer. But he does come to each table for a little
meet and greet thing. I wished I'd known how to say "you're shafting
us" in Japanese :)

"Konishiki" is historically a very prestigious shikona. When he
retired, he left sumo entirely and became a "talento"- which is an odd
Japanese thing in which somebody becomes omnipresent on TV without
any particular talent at all. The closest US analogy might be Zsa Zsa
Gabor :) He wanted to keep the name, but the sumo association
insisted that he only use it in Roman letters, and in all caps at
that. So now he's KONISHIKI. I sorta agree that "Gojira" might
have been more appropriate :)

Sorry - this is totally OT, except that KONISHIKI still weighs 500-
600 pounds, and thus takes up a great deal of space :)

Dale


author: Christopher Manteuffel

text:
On Mar 27, 4:46 pm, Pat Flannery <[email]> wrote:

DANFS says that six men were killed and 13 injured (five seriously
enough to be transfered to hospital ship SOLACE) in the accident.

Chris Manteuffel


text:
On Mar 27, 1:34 am, Pat Flannery <[email]> wrote:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/012707.jpg

The results of USS Michigan sailing through a storm in January 1918.

Chris Manteuffel


author: Pat Flannery

subject:
Re: USA Today: Columbia disaster stranded three men in space with
 'no return ticket'

text:
Dale Carlson wrote:

I always liked the look on his opponents faces when they faced him in
the ring.... like "OH MY GOD! I'd forgotten just how huge he is!". :-D
Speaking of old IJN battleships, they kept rebuilding the Fuso and
Yamashiro to the point where they ended up with these absurdly tall
superstructures:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Japanese_battleships_Yamashiro%2C_Fuso_and_Haruna.jpg

Pat


text:
Christopher Manteuffel wrote:

I found a photo looking up the inside of the cage mast on our "concrete
battleship", Fort Drum: http://tinyurl.com/yuapld
I don't know if you walk around on the grid, if it's structural, or if
it's a safety net of some sort in case you fall while ascending the cage
mast.

Pat


text:
Christopher Manteuffel wrote:

Ouch! I hope no one was up there when that happened.
Cage masts or tripod masts? The Navy debates:
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/cagvtrip.htm

Pat


author: Mary Pegg

text:
Pat Flannery wrote:

Why "absurd"?  The higher up you are, the more you can see.

IANANavalHistorian.


author: Mike Flugennock

subject:
Re: USA Today: Columbia disaster stranded three men in space with
  'no return ticket'

text:
Pat Flannery wrote:

Kee-rist. That's not a superstructure, that's a _building_. I'm
surprised they didn't just roll over.


author: Herb Schaltegger

text:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:18:46 -0500, Mary Pegg wrote
(in article <Wh_Nh.19498$[email]>):

Negative considerations right off the top of my head:

- If the pagoda masts are too lightly armored, they're very easily damaged in
battle;
- If heavily armored enough they raise the center of gravity (and axis of
roll), negatively impacting gun accuracy and increasing risk of capsizing
when the hull floods asymmetrically;
- They make the ship more easily seen and identified visually an on radar;

I'm sure they're others but my already-short attention span is being dragged
elsewhere at the moment.


text:
Mary Pegg wrote:

Remember our cage masts on our early battleships, like the U.S.S. North
Dakota?:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h61000/h61218.jpg
(beautiful huge model of that ship in Bismarck BTW.)
They were designed like that to keep the observers high up, but be able
to take a shell hit without collapsing.
A square hit of Fuso or Yamashiro's superstructure's base might well
cause the whole works to collapse.
I've just checked, and from the waterline to their top, the
superstructures on Fuso and Yamashiro are higher that those on Yamato
and Musashi, which had around twice their displacement.
I'd hate to be up in the top of that thing during rough weather, because
you are probably going to be nauseous from the ship's rolling, much less
getting a usable reading from the rangefinder.

Pat


text:
Mike Flugennock wrote:
Hang on, I'll get the calipers and plans out.


text:
Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Really strange story; how the Fuso got blown in half, and the back half
may have sailed off under power:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/atully06.htm
I used to have a 1/700th scale model of Yamashiro; it was a very odd
looking ship indeed.
The really impressive model was the 1/200th scale Yamato; it took days
to build, but the ship was the most formidable looking thing you ever
laid eyes on; _hoards_ of antiaircraft gun turrets amidships.
Our Iowa class battleships were really beautiful and majestic looking
warships...Yamato looked like an entire fortress had put to sea. It
would have scared the hell out of me if I saw it coming at me. It looked
almost indestructible.

Pat


author: Henry Spencer

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

Although they mostly didn't reach quite those absurd levels, all
20th-century battleships tended to acquire more and more elaborate
superstructures as they were refitted and upgraded.  Between demands for
operation in rougher weather (requiring that exposed bridges etc. be
enclosed), the switch to centralized gunnery control and steadily
increasing expected battle ranges (requiring control stations up high),
the rapid growth of antiaircraft armament (plus centralized control for at
least the heavier AA guns), and the explosive proliferation of radio,
radar, and ECM, there was a lot of demand for space up top.

Western battleship superstructures did tend to grow in more coordinated
ways, in occasional major upgrades, rather than just steadily building up
clutter the way some of the Japanese designs did.

Despite the importance of things like gunnery control, it was impossible
to provide substantial armor that high up.  They had to settle for
redundancy (meaning still more superstructure to accommodate duplicates of
important things) and firmly crossed fingers.


text:
Henry Spencer wrote:

I checked all the drawings in my Warships Of The Japanese Imperial Navy
book; the only Japanese battleship outside Fuso and Yamashiro that ever
equaled that height as measured from the waterline was Nagato (the IJN
flagship) after she had her radar added (I don't know if the other ship
of her class - Mutsu, ever had radar fitted.)
Lots of data about Yamashiro and her superstructure here:
http://www.steelnavy.com/HM%20Yamashiro.htm

Pat


author: Lori Kamus

subject: Prozac = liver damage??

text:
My post to sci.med last week received no response (well, none that I
saw, possibly because our newsfeed is frequently disrupted). This
is a more appropriate newsgroup; perhaps someone here would comment
on something disturbing I heard at the holiday dinner table.

Is there recent information linking Prozac with an unusually high risk
of (unspecified) liver damage? My aunt briefly used it, and over the
holidays mentioned to me that she was glad she hadn't tolerated it
well (headaches), because her new general practicioner told her he
would "never prescribe it to anyone". His reason for this was stated
to be "high risk of liver damage".

I'd be less skeptical if I'd ever heard even one account of even
long-term use of Prozac posing a risk to the liver (as opposed to
growing hair on your palms).

Would my aunt's prior medical history make "liver damage" of particular
concern to her doctor? She had breast cancer seven years ago, but has no
known liver problems. She did not use chemotherapy. She's at least as
lucid as I am (!) so I don't believe she misunderstood the doctor.

He's a primary care physician at a prestigious cancer care center in
southern California. My aunt switched to this facility after a
questionable-looking mammogram this year (turned out to be a false
alarm). I guess I'm looking for affirmation that his statement (as
reported to me, anyway) is what is questionable. Any takers?


author: Robert D Canning

subject: Re: Prozac = liver damage??

text:
I've have never heard of Prozac being bad for the liver by itself.  I do not
know of all possible interactions that could lead to adverse effects.  I would
check with a good psychopharmacologist before taking the word of a GP or
oncology doc.  How about a liver specialist?  Any hepatologists out there?


author: Name withheld by request

subject: Re: Prozac = liver damage??

text:
This is very interesting!

Early last year, I was participating in a out-patient drug trail
of an experimental anti-depressant (Tandisporian-GITS), but had to
drop out after 6 weeks when the weekly blood test showed abnormal
liver enzyme levels...the levels appeared to be heading back
toward normal when last tested, but I wonder if something permanent
was not done to my liver by the entire experience.


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Prozac = liver damage??

text:
Lori Kamus <[email]> writes:

There are two possible and by no means mutually exclusive explanations for
the physician's remark: (1) ignorance, and (2) ideology. Indeed, those cha
s frequently travel together.

A small but highly militant group of non-psychiatric medical practitioners
seem to know no shame when it comes to trying to frighten their patients
about psychiatric medications the MD does not, usually for personal reasons,
approve of.

The GP's remark about 'never prescribing' Prozac to 'anyone' probably gives
the game away, and certainly removes the issue from any specific medical
concern about your aunt.

Of course, patients commonly 'quote' -and in the process selectively often
misrepresent- doctors to buttress or even camouflage their own opinions. It
may be that your aunt has some misgivings or apprehensions about the need for
or use of medications in her case.

Negative press coverage to the contrary, Prozac is a remarkably safe drug as
prescription drugs go.


author: Dawn Friedman

subject: Re: Prozac = liver damage??

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Name withheld by request) writes:
  I am not a doctor, but my husband and my mother have recently had
experiences with elevated liver enzymes, and based on what they learned,
I think I can assure you that elevated liver enzymes are much more
common than people realize and are unlikely to lead to any permanent
liver problems.

  Many medications can raise liver enzyme levels without causing any
serious problems (though it is better to be on the safe side and cut
out the medication.)  Various illnesses, some quite mild, can do the
same.  When my mother had a minor elevation in two enzymes, her doctor
had her cut out all the vitamin and mineral supplements that had been
prescribed by her other doctor!  Apparently almost anything can cause
a temporary elevation.

  Can any of the more qualified folk here second this?


author: Robert Hsiung

subject: Re: Prozac = liver damage??

text:
The Prozac package insert (which of course one may believe or not) lists as
an "infrequent" (.001 to .01 of patients) "adverse event" abnormal liver
function tests and as "rare" (<.001 of patients) ones hepatitis,
hepatomegaly (enlarged liver), jaundice, and liver tenderness.

Also, Prozac does commonly inhibit to a clinically significant extent a
liver enzyme called cytochrome P450 that's involved in the metabolism of
lots of other drugs. This means that if you're on one of those other drugs
and keep taking as much of it as you did before you started Prozac, its
level in your system might rise to a point that was dangerous. It's not
what I'd personally refer to as "liver damage", but perhaps that GP would.
There's some evidence that the newer antidepressant Zoloft causes much less
inhibition. Those inclined, see Preskorn, Recent Pharmacologic Advances in
Antidepressant Therapy for the Elderly, Amer J Med, 1993, vol 94 (supp 5a),
pp 5a2s-5a12s.


author: Graham Cooper

subject: Re: What's happened to Australia?

text:
On Jun 23, 8:41 pm, "Clocky" <[email]> wrote:

http://photosofclouds.com/MOON/ENTER-PRIZE.png

What about that one?  Just a typical cloudy night Clocky?

Herc


author: Clocky

subject: Re: What's happened to Australia?

text:
Graham Cooper wrote:

Yep, afraid so champ.

If you don't believe me just take some photos and ask others to look for
patterns and see if they match what you see.


author: Government Shill #2

subject: Re: What's happened to Australia?

text:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 04:10:30 -0700 (PDT), Graham Cooper
<[email]> wrote:

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_sounds/hg/looney.wav

Shill #2


author: American Dreamer

subject: Re: pharm salaries

text:
I know from talking to those who do the pharmacist hiring that it depends on
where in the state you are located.  They showed me the salaries they pay
their Dallas/Ft. Worth pharmacists and what they pay them in NorthWest
Louisiana.  It was a difference of $6000/year for the same volume of
scripts.  That is not true if you lived in a small rural area of Texas.  In
that case, you would make the same as someone working in, say, Shreveport,
LA, a metro area of over 300,000.

Of course, it's been a while since I talked to those people and I may be
wrong about being paid less for a rural location.  The difference between
Dallas and NorthWest Louisiana I am sure of though.

"larry kane" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: Bob G.

subject: Re: pharm salaries

text:
Although I am retired I still remain a certified card player with a large
group Pharmacists.   Its Just the opposite in the Baltimore/DC area...
The chains have been paying premium rates (8 grand a year more) to
practice in rural areas....just too small a labor pool to draw from...

Funny part of the entire thing is that the cost of living is quite a bit less in
the rural areas also...  If I were 25 again  I would be gone....

Bob Griffiths
.

American Dreamer wrote:


author: DVERSLUYS

subject: Re: pharm salaries

text:
But what are the saleries? I would like to see a salarie number. 50,60,70,80
thousand?

"Bob G." <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...
less in
depends on
pay
In
Shreveport,
between


subject: Re: pharm salaries

text:
Low paying areas start as 75K for a 5 day 40 hr week in a staff position... 83K
in rural areas.... most managers are up close to or slightly over 100K...for a
40 hr week.. Assistant managers somewhere in the middle.  But many stores are
now functioning without assistants which makes no sense at all...bean counters
are now in control...

I retired in 1998   To calculate my retirement they used the last 10 years
average pay...it turned out to 97+     I retired the day I turned  55  as did my
wife in 1999.

Bob G.

DVERSLUYS wrote:


author: James Dow Allen

subject: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
Please explain how measures like GDP are calculated,
and biases overcome.

Suppose, for example, a company fires its $100k/year
technician and hires a technical firm for $200k/year
to do the same job.  (To complete the loop, suppose
the firm hires the fired technician at $100k to do
the work, and pockets the extra $100k.)

Does GNP then increase by $100k ?  By $200k ?
What will be the effect on computed productivity?

As a simpler example, suppose Mrs. Brown and Mrs. Jones
are bored with doing free housework for their husbands
and hire themselves out, Mr. Brown paying $50k to
Mrs. Jones, and Mr. Jones paying the same to Mrs. Brown.
In this case I suppose that whether GNP increases by
$100k depends on whether Brown and Jones complete the
proper tax forms.

I'm sure there are many better examples of this
measurement problem.  I'm sure such questions are discussed
by economists but they don't appear in the popular press.
Perhaps the usual answer is
  ``Yes there are biases, but they're similar year-to-year,
    so computed growth rates and productivity are still
    meaningful.''
But with employment structure changing rapidly
in today's America, is such an answer valid?

James


author: Albert Wagner

subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 23:18:01 GMT
"susupply" <[email]> wrote:
<snip>

You don't really need a target for your vomit.  Why not just start your
own thread?


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:41:19 GMT
"susupply" <[email]> wrote:

Unlike Patrick, who concedes nothing, even when proved wrong and who has
demonstrated absolutely no expertise in economics, logic, rhetoric or
English grammar.
Who the hell is Patrick anyway?  Some 13 year old loser with a bad case
of acne and an attitude?

<snip>

What they taught us is that cut-and-paste is called plagiarism. Is that
how you win debates?

<snip>

I suppose that this exchange is documented somewhere and is not just
your wishful thinking.

<snip>


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
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.

<snip>

Sorry, Patrick. As usual, you either quote out of context or misquote
totally. So I cannot believe that what you chose to cut-and-paste,
including a single email from Chris Auld, comes anywhere near the truth
of the matter.  However, I have been in contact with Steve Keen and he
has authorized me to release three PDFs that counter Chris's attacks.  I
can also see why you are so enamored with Chris.  He has the same
unpleasant habit that you display of putting words in his opponents
mouth and then attacking a straw man.  If you will request them in
private email I will send you Steve's articles.  I don't have a site on
which to place them.

BTW, not everyone shares your view of Steve Keen's book:

'Professional economists include their own best critics. Steve Keen is
one of the very best. Drawing on three generations of expert dissent,
adding his own, and translating the algebra into plain language, he
deploys a devastating theoretical attack on the neoclassical theory
which currently shapes the education of economists and much national
economic strategy.'

--Hugh Stretton, Fellow of the Academies of the Humanities and Social
Sciences,
and author of Economics: A New Introduction

'Debunking Economics may not delight economic conservatives, but it is
certainly necessary. Our hope must be that it will be read by enough
people to prompt reform of our economic thinking and save our endangered
societies.'

--James Cumes, author of How to Become a Millionaire without really
working, and other books

'Particularly useful to those, like myself, who are interested in
economics but not formally trained in it. Debunking Economics reveals
that neoclassical economic doctrines are faulty not because conditions
have changed over time, but because the fundamental assumptions from
which such doctrines have been derived are less than self-evident. This
book will help create a more informed public so necessary for improving
economic policy fromulation in a democratic society.'

--Henry C.K. Liu, Chairman, Liu Investment Group

'Keen's serious but accessible look at the shaky logical and
mathematical foundations of neoclassical economics will be of great
interest to students and open-minded economists alike. And his
insightful survey of alternative schools of thought lends substance to
his call for a new economics, one that puts people first by analyzing
the instabilities and inequities of actual market economies.'

--Don Goldstein, Associate Professor of Economics, Allegheny College

'A wide-ranging yet accessible critique of the staples of neoclassical
pedagogy.'

--Alan G. Isaac, Associate Professor of Economics, American University

'If you want to read a book which is economics for economists, then buy
another book. If you are interested in how the economy really works (and
want to challenge an economist) then read this book.'

--James Dick, Professional Members Division, The Economic Society of
Australia

'This text carefully follows the form of argument familiar to all
economics undergraduates, though to conclusions from which
undergraduates are more usually protected. Avoiding polemic or
hyperbole, the case that he presents is all the more damning for its
clarity and systematic approach.'

--John M. Legge, Associate Professor, LaTrobe University

'Debunking Economics -- in combination with Hugh Stretton's A New
Introduction to Economics - will transform the way economics is taught
and thought.'

--Jan Otto Andersson, Professor of Economics, Åbo Akademi University,
Finland

'Refreshingly provocative.'

--Geoffrey Fishburn, Department of Economics, University of New South
Wales.


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:29:21 GMT
"susupply" <[email]> wrote:
<snip>

Pooh.  Just more lies and misrepresentations.


author: Tim Worstall

subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
[email] (James Dow Allen) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

GDP does not change. Consider, there are three broad ways to calculate
it. As an accounting definition, it is either all incomes, all
spending or all production. Total incomes above have not changed. The
tech is still getting $ 100,000 a year. The consultancy is getting $
100k a year in profits. But as we have the same work being done ( ie
no change in productivity ) where has that 100 k of profits come from
? Obviously from the reduction by $ 100 k in profits made by the firm
which originally fired the technician and hired the consultancy.
So the grossed up income in the economy has not changed : we've just
moved some of it around.

This does increase GDP. As I said earlier, it is acknowleged that when
a man marries his ( paid ) houskeeper and turns her into an ( unpaid )
housewife, recorded GDP falls. You are simply positing the reverse.
So, to answer the question you haven't asked, but probably want to,
yes, there are anomalies in the way GDP is calculatd, in that it
leaves out all of those things that people do outside the cash
economy. Other examples are subsistence farming, growing your own
vegetables, unpaid volunteer work and so on.

But then, GDP is just trying to measure economic activity ( more
specifically, value added ) and so to complain because it does not
register things that are not economic activity is a little perverse.

There are many attmept out there to measure the health of the economy
differently, usually starting with the assumption that solely
considering value added is not fully reflective of reality. And that
is correct. But it is useful to have a number which both claims to,
and does, measure solely that, val;ue added in the domestic economy.

Tim Worstall


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:13:25 GMT
"susupply" <[email]> wrote:

<snip>

Steve Keen wrote a 335pp book.  Not being an economist, I doubt that I
could condense what he said to a single usenet post.  However, even
though I am currently only halfway through the book, I find myself
marveling at the profound stupidity and stubbornness of neoclassical
economists.

No, straight 4.0s.

Nor did I give you one.  I am sure that you see the above remark as both
a scientific and mathematical refutation of Steve Keen's work, but it
just won't fly outside your own small circle of deaf and blind bullies.

Who the hell is Chris Auld?  And why is HE not a crackpot?


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
[email] (James Dow Allen) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

It's a well known criticism of GNP figures that when a man marries his
housekeeper GNP falls.
But that's just the way the figures are calculated.

Tim Worstall


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
On 15 Dec 2003 23:39:57 -0800
[email] (James Dow Allen) wrote:

"The GDP is simply a gross measure of market activity, of money changing
hands. It makes no distinction whatsoever between the desirable and the
undesirable, or costs and gain. On top of that, it looks only at the
portion of reality that economists choose to acknowledge--the part
involved in monetary transactions. The crucial economic functions
performed in the household and volunteer sectors go entirely unreckoned.
As a result the GDP not only masks the breakdown of the social structure
and the natural habitat upon which the economy--and life
itself--ultimately depend; worse, it actually portrays such breakdown as
economic gain."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ecbig/gdp.htm

<snip>


author: Grinch

subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
On 15 Dec 2003 23:39:57 -0800, [email] (James Dow Allen)
wrote:

To begin with, GDP and GNP are different things.

And productivity is a third thing....

You can learn all you want about GDP and GNP from the official
compilers of the data at http://www.bea.doc.gov/

As the FAQ there states: "Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the market
value of goods and services produced by labor and property in the
United States".

That is, it is the net value of all goods and services produced in the
US valued at market prices. Yes, a host of adjustments are made to it
to correct for the many and various biases that can affect that market
data.

*However*, in the case where a housewife joins the market by getting a
job earning a market wage no correction is necessary because there is
no bias -- that is in fact an expansion of the market and is correctly
measured as such.

Something important to remember about GDP is that, as any econ
textbook says right at the beginning, it is *not* a "measure of
welfare" -- it just measures what it measures, no more, no less.

There are a whole flotilla of other measurements of the economy, such
as, oh, the civilian participation rate in the employment market:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART/12/Max
Is the long-term increase seen there, including all those former
housewives going to work, good or bad?  Are they driven to work out of
need or attracted to it by new opportunities? That datum only measures
what it measures too, so it's hard to say from it alone.

To get a picture of whether the health of the economy is good or bad
or getting better or getting worse, you have to take a look at a whole
range of such economic measures to form a picture, then make your own
judgment.

To make an analogy, when you go to the doctor to measure your personal
health, your temperature and blood pressure will be measured.  But
those measurements only measure what they measure.

You don't complain that they are "biased" and should somehow be
"adjusted" because they don't reveal you have diabetes and skin
cancer. The doctor takes other measurements to reveal other things.

You are right about one thing, GDP data gets thrown around by the
press recklessly, without explanation or understanding, and often
misinterpreted as a basic measurement of welfare.  There are two
reasons for that.

The first is that GDP growth does correlate *generally* with the trend
in economic health -- more market transactions mean more sales, more
employment, etc, and vice versa -- just like your body temperature
correlates *generally* with your health. If either your body
temperature or the GDP growth rate gets too high or too low it's a
sign that something's wrong, though not of what. Even though the fact
that either of them is in the "normal" range does not prove nothing is
wrong.

The second is that the press is famously illiterate on economics,
committing howlers all the time on even ABCs, and doesn't know any
better than to keep harping on GDP, which is all they *think* they
understand.


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

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

Nor have I seen you point to "every economist and econ organization in
the world," but rather only those that support your viewpoint.

I suspect only neoclassicals laugh in order to discredit it as you are
doing.

Roughly equivalent to neoclassical economists who ignore all of the
scientific and mathematical proof that neoclassical economics is based
on lies.

"Broken things and poor health" ARE bad.  And in that neoeconomists and
their dupes in the media rely so heavily on a rising GDP as an indicator
of economic health there is a desperate need for another, more useful,
indicator.

Non-sequitur. Leaking roofs and heart attacks ARE bad. People who fix
broken things ARE good.  According to the GDP a massive plague would
show up as a sharp rise in GDP.

Another logical fallacy.  Even assuming your accusations were correct
about the writer you refer to, it does not follow that his economic
analysis is flawed.

BTW, what are YOUR economic credentials?  Econ 101 on the way to a
business degree?


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:01:28 GMT
"susupply" <[email]> wrote:

<snip>

There are many reputable economists who have produced voluminous proofs.
 A good starting point for you might be Steve Keen's book, "Debunking
Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences."

<snip>


author: susupply

subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
"Albert Wagner" <[email]>

backsliding into inefficiency in the use of his major,

wrote in message news:[email]...

Why bother drawing attention to your absolute humiliation in being unable to
answer simple questions written in plain English?

Btw, just where did you earn this degree you used to brag about?


subject: Re: Calculation of GDP, Productivity

text:
"Albert Wagner" <[email]>

continuing to embarrass his mentor,

 wrote in message news:[email]...

Uh huh, this guy is definitely your cup of tea, Robert.

Sorry to tell you, but they lied about plagiarism.  It's called quotation
for "fair use".

Oh, most definitely it is documented.  For instance:

http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A2=ind0203&L=hayek-l&O=A&P=4168

Where, in response to Steve Keen's capitulation on a book already published:

Chris Auld comments:

<< While I appreciate Steve's honesty in capitulating this portion of the
argument, I offer the suggestion that investigating the matter further may
change his mind rather than help him "make a decent case" that economists
don't use dynamic analysis.

<< Since Steve has backed down on his allegations regarding dynamics, has
not
defended his idea that the approximation error from treating prices as
parametric is large rather than vanishingly small, and has offered nothing
to bolster the mathematically incorrect argument that the standard
comparison of monopoly v competitive markets is invalid, I am not sure if
anything even debatable remains in the "new critiques." >>