subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
In article <3emngb$[email]> [email] (Dan Hankins) writes:

That's the general impression and that's the frame that a lot of the
arguments in sci.psychology have been carried out in.  However I think
that that's not actually the disagreement.

I think it has more to do with comparing apples and oranges.  While
certainly many NLP enthusiasts are naive about empirical methodology,
many others have graduate training in clinical psychology, through the
doctoral level in some cases, and will agree that the statistical
methodology favored by academic clinical psychology is quite appropriate
for studying the sorts of questions that traditional clinical psychology
has concentrated on.  If one is doing therapy over an extended period of
time during which lots of other things are happening in the subject's
life and if the success rate is not all that much better than random,
there is a clear need for statistical analysis.  But in determining the
effectiveness of single-session therapy to achieve very specific easily
identifiable outcomes, such statistical analysis seems like overkill.

The arguments against NLP usually come from academics and therapists who
have no experience with it and in fact scarcely know what it is.  So
far, to the best of my knowledge, whenever someone with conventional
training in clinical psychology and a commitment to traditional
methodology actually makes an honest effort to learn some NLP and tries
using it, they cease to make the same sort of objections.  This is not to
say that they don't think that more systematic study would be useful, but
so far I have not heard in sci.psychology or elsewhere of any therapist
who has ever actually tried NLP and failed to find a lot of value in it.
(Now's your chance to speak up!)

Like any methodology, the statistical methodology has a strong
influence in determining the types of questions that can be addressed.
To do statistics one needs clearly defined questions and clearly defined
outcomes that can be quantifiably measured.  In clinical psychology, this
has led to such things as the DSM and the use of diagnostic instruments.
It has meant a focus on specific treatments for specific "disorders," and
a lack of study of the "non-specific factors" --- such as the
interpersonal skills of the therapist --- which statistical studies
themselves actually show are most important in the success of therapy.

A lot of NLP (although not the part usually emphasized in these arguments
in sci.psychology) really falls more in the realm of these non-specific
factors.  I'm referring to parts of NLP such as language patterns, the
emphasis on rapport and "pacing and leading," and the general structures
for gathering information partly described in the  changework.*  articles
in my archive.  To put it another way, a lot of NLP is about the *art* of
therapy rather than the science.

Now it's probably possible to statistically study the effectiveness of
this in general --- it would mean finding a way of measuring the
effectiveness of therapists before and after they go through NLP
training.  But it would require a major statistical effort, resulting
in something like the mythical three-volume report David Sternlight has
talked about, in order to determine the effectiveness of each of these
factors specifically.  (One group of therapists would be taught the
meta-model but no other part of NLP.  Another group would be taught
only hypnotic language patterns.  Another group would be taught slight
of tongue patterns.  Another group would be taught only the
well-formedness conditions for therapeutic outcomes.  Then the before-
and-after effectiveness of each group would be measured.)

Another part of NLP though, the part most discussed in sci.psychology,
has to do with specific techniques.  Many of these, for instance the
thought-stopping and behavior-stopping patterns such as the Swish
Pattern, don't fit well into the academic paradigms because they are so
non-specific in the outcomes they address; that is to say, the
particular outcome at a particular moment with a particular client is
appropriately specific (that, in fact, is one of the NLP well-formedness
conditions for outcomes), but for a given technique there is a very large
range of problems the technique can be used for.

Nonetheless, one could easily do a statistical study on the effectiveness
of the Swish Pattern in treating, for instance, nail biting.  Whether
anyone would be willing to expend the effort required to do a five-year
outcome study on a cure for nail biting is another question.

And that brings up another problem in using traditional paradigms to
study NLP.  Although a lot of the techniques are fairly general in the
type of problem they address, a lot of the *outcomes* addressed by NLP
are much *too* specific.  Or to put it another way, for a NLPer most of
the problems addressed by traditional clinical psychology are much too
vague.

A good NLPer (and at times these seem like almost mythical creatures)
will not be satisfied when a client comes in and says "I'm depressed
all the time."  The NLPer needs to ask, "What do you mean by being
depressed?  What do you feel/think/do that lets you know that you're
depressed?  How do you know *when* to be depressed?"  (And he has to be
able to ask these types of questions and still retain rapport, which is
certainly a considerable challenge.)  The NLPer has no technique for
dealing with "depression," but if the client says, for instance, "I
keep thinking about my ex-girl friend and everytime I think about her I
feel bad," that's something he can probably help the client change.

But trying looking up "Thinking excessively about an ex-partner"
in the DSM!

But there do exist specific NLP techniques for dealing with specific
problems recognized by the clinical establishment, most especially
anxiety disorders.  Certainly in principle there's no difficulty in
conducting a five-year outcome study on the NLP Fast Phobia/Trauma Cure.
And this has in fact been done, with highly successful results, at least
if one believes Bill Goodrich (which I certainly think one should).  But
it's unpublished.

In any case, the NLPer tends to say "Why bother?"  You have a client
with a phobia of heights and you take him up to the twentieth floor and
say, "Walk out on the balcony," and he becomes pale and breaks into a
sweat and starts shaking and says in a quivering voice, "I can't."  Then
you spend fifteen or thirty minutes with him, taking him through a simple
visualization which itself requires only about ten minutes, and take him
back up to the twentieth floor.  He looks at you and looks at the balcony
and is a little puzzled.  He slowly, cautiously walks out onto the
balcony, waiting for the fear to come but it doesn't.  He walks up to the
railing, looks out over it, and for a moment looks straight down.  Then
he comes back and says, "I just realized that there's nothing to be
afraid of, really.  The railing is high enough so I couldn't possibly go
over it by accident even if I fell against it.  I'm not so sure about
looking straight down, though --- that made me a little nervous."

Sure, any decent therapist or faith healer or chiropracter or whatever
can report on occasional miraculous cures from subjects he has treated.
But this is an experiment with a specific readily identifiable outcome
and you can repeat it as often as you can find subjects with phobias.
Sure, there are still a number of questions such a very informal study
leaves unanswered, but considering the simplicity of the technique and
the fact that it doesn't interfere with the subsequent use of more
conventional treatment, if required, I think that any therapist who
has success with the above experiment three or four times would be
irresponsible not to inform a phobic client about it.

Does this mean that it's wrong to use statistical methods to study cures
for depression, schizophrenia, or other disorders in the DSM?  Not at
all.  I don't think any educated NLPer would claim that such statistical
studies are inappropriate.

It just means that one's methodology should be appropriate to the nature
of the phenomenon studied.


author: Frank Fujita

subject: Re: The Psychology of Beliefs, Opinions, and Arguments (was: Re: NLP...

text:
Jim Mork ([email]) wrote:
: Most people don't want to DEBATE their assumptions.  In fact, most people
: are in a poor position to debate their assumptions.  And it would muck up
: a perfectly decent (tho empty) debate.

How can you debate assumptions?
Frank Fujita


author: Rosemary Lyndall

subject: Religion & Morals (was Re: The Psychology of Beliefs, etc)

text:
Lee Lady wrote:

On Sun, 8 Jan 1995, Arun Gupta wrote:

That question is meaningless to me.  I don't share your assumption that I
have to have an overt and defined system on which to base my morality.
I really don't know what I base my morality on but that doesn't mean that
I am "immoral" or that my morals are inferior to those who base them on
some self-identified ideology or religion.

My experience suggests that a person's level of moral maturity (see
Kohlberg's developmental levels) is independent of religious beliefs.  It
seems more likely that the type of religious beliefs a person holds is an
indicator rather than a cause of their moral system.

There is a lot of difference between the morality of Mother Therese and
the aspiring priest who murdered abortion clinic workers in the name of
morality.  Same religion, different set of morals supposedly derived from
it.

OTOH there's not much difference between the morality of the religious
Mother Therese and that of Australia's Fred Hollows, an a-religious eye
surgeon who gave up a lucrative practice to provide sight to the pecunious
Aboriginal population of Australia and the poor of several third-world
countries.   Fred's work continues in the name of humanity, not of religion.
He probably couln't have told you where he got the basis for his
humanitarianism.

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Rosemary Lyndall                Rosemary from DownUnder            _--_|\
  Clinical Neuro-psychologist  [email]   Perth /      \
  Perth, Western Australia    [email]     -->\_.--._/
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------v-


author: D. Todd

subject: Re: Religion & Morals (was Re: The Psychology of Beliefs, etc)

text:
Rosemary:

Good point! I've always contended that many different kinds of people can
be found in many different belief systems. People continually shape what
these systems become, and these systems (in turn) continually shape others.

Thanks for an interesting post :-)

Darlene Todd

*************************************
true freedom comes from knowledge
that leads to understanding....
*************************************

In article <[email]>
Rosemary Lyndall <[email]> writes:


subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
Bill Goodrich ([email]) wrote:
: As someone involved in a much more recent rigorous study, I can give you
: one answer - one you are probably not going to like. The plain fact is,
: virtually all of the refereed psychology journals have explicit policies
: against accepting (much less reviewing or publishing) papers validating
: any part of NLP.

I find it hard to accept that publications such as Psychological Bulletin
will accept manuscripts that attempt to validate telepathy and
clairvoyance but not NLP.  I'm not saying that you are making it up,
but if I were to try to correct this problem, you haven't given me
the ammunition to shoot with.

: If I sound bitter, it is because three friends of mine lost 5 years'
: work and were threatened with loss of tenure and/or position if they
: released their study in any form.

This sounds a bit hard to swallow too.  Surely if Rushton can publish
his racial genetics and keep tenure (in Canada without a first amendment)
then your three friends could sue the pants off of an institution that
threatened them to keep scientific slience.

Frank Fujita


author: Paul Bernhardt

subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
Bill Goodrich ([email]) wrote:

: Partway through the message, Dave asks the critical question:

: [email] (Dangerous Dave) writes:

: >How is it that since 1975 when NLP was first introduced there have been
: >only a dozen or so solid attempts at verification in the psychology
:                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >literature?
:  ^^^^^^^^^^

: As someone involved in a much more recent rigorous study, I can give you
: one answer - one you are probably not going to like. The plain fact is,
: virtually all of the refereed psychology journals have explicit policies
: against accepting (much less reviewing or publishing) papers validating
: any part of NLP. While descriptions of APPLICATIONS of NLP have been
: published in other psychological publications, validation studies have
: not been PUBLISHED.

: The vast majority of the early, published research was along two lines:
: (1) the mistaken notion that NLP treats all eye movements as accessing
: cues, coupled with the mistaken notion that NLP proposed two fixed maps
: of eye accessing cues - one for right-handers, the other for lefties;
: (2) The mistaken notion that NLP proposes that all predicates someone
: uses reflect a single, preferred representation system. The results of
: those studies failed to support those notions, although they were
: entirely consistant with the actual NLP constructs. Unfortunately, the
: majority of researchers and reviewers have blindly accepted the above
: misconceptions as authoritative.

: If I sound bitter, it is because three friends of mine lost 5 years'
: work and were threatened with loss of tenure and/or position if they
: released their study in any form. On top of that, I keep hearing (and
: reading posts from) people who interpret the seeming silence as a lack
: of existing research and a lack of interest in substantive research
: within the NLP community. I find it interesting that they don't draw
: any such conclusions from the lack of studies discrediting any of the
: vast majority of NLP.

: >I have seen a mountain of commercial enterprise promoting the methods
: >and approach and only a trickle of effort to substantiate the claims
: >made by NLP.

: If the journals are your primary source for the latter, that is not
: surprising. The above policies, coupled with an APA position
: discouraging such research (and declaring NLP as quackery) have gone a
: long way towards creating the impression that there is no significant
: data supporting any part of NLP. You can still find the supporting data
: by learning enough about NLP to recognize the descriptions without the
: title "NLP" attached.

: I did not take your statement as a flame, and I hope you will not take
: this statement as one.

This all sounds like a chicken and egg argument once boiled down.  If
there is a lot of supporting research for NLP sitting in file drawers
because it is not publishable it is a crime.  Sometimes political
influences do restrict the flow of scientific information.

I suggest the following: The several researchers (Bill mentioned he knows
of three) who have suppressed research should get together and write a
book that shows their research support. Include the data analysis, the
proceedures, the operationalizations.  Make sure the book includes enough
information for the research to be replicated by others.  The
psychologist James F.T. Bugenthal said that you should never let an idea
die: if you believe in it get it published, some how some way, use a
vanity press if you must.  Keep in mind that the tenuous arguements in
the Bell Curve did not keep it from being published.

If the book has merit, it will infuse and influence future work. The
politics will be affected because politics is always local. It is, in the
end, the concensus of individuals that changes politics.  The subversive
book does end up on shelves in academic offices, it is talked about in
the corridors between ballrooms where the 'real science' is discussed.
Eventually opinions change, if there is merit to the arguement. If no
merit, they won't change.

The only reason to not pursue this course (or one similar) is that
proponents of NLP know their research is not replicatable or valuable.


author: Lee Lady

subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
The people who argue against the worth of NLP generally present a
false dichotomy.  Namely, it is assumed that a therapist has only two
choices: either accept the validity of NLP on the basis of the available
anecdotal evidence and start basing one's practice on it; or believe that
it cannot possibly contain anything of value and consequently is not
worth knowing about.

I don't think that either of these alternatives makes any sense.  From
the point of view of cost/benefit ratio, there is very little to be lost
by reading one of the better NLP books to see if one finds anything
useful in it.  (I personally recommend HEART OF THE MIND, by Connirae &
Steve Andreas.  Other NLPers have other recommendations.)  The next
step, involving a little more time and expense, might be to actually
try some NLP out for oneself.  One might try one of the techniques
described in books on a self-help basis or one might take some personal
problem to an NLP practitioner to see what he can do.  Or one might
even go through a weekend seminar.  And then, if there seems to be a
possibility of some value in NLP, a therapist could cautiously try a
few of the simpler NLP techniques with some of his clients and see what
happens.

Usually it's only after doing this sort of preliminary exploration that a
therapist will decide it's worthwhile to actually go through an NLP
training.  But even then, the attitude of most therapists will be
exploratory and cautious.  I think that few therapists who sign up for an
NLP training expect to learn something that will completely replace the
approaches they have previously been using.  In fact, I think that most
therapists expect to be satisfied if they manage to learn a handful of
small things that will marginally improve their effectiveness.  And I
think they are aware from their experiences with previous trainings and
seminars that committing oneself to learn something new is always a crap
shoot, no matter how good the hype is.

In article <3g38cg$[email]> [email] writes:
         [Personal experience with scop patch omitted here for brevity.]

There's no doubt that many NLPers are naive about the issues involved in
doing careful empirical studies.  Furthermore, the more naive ones tend
to be much more unrestrained in their enthusiasm for NLP and much more
prominent in forums such as this one.  (To a certain extent, this
certainly includes myself.)

However there are many other people who have been through traditional
graduate training in clinical psychology or similar empirically based
disciplines and are nonetheless firmly convinced of the value of NLP,
even in the absence of carefully done published studies.  Almost all of
the leaders in the NLP community have this sort of education and are well
aware of the issues you raise.

The objections you raise are all based on hypothetical concerns.
Hypothetically, one can believe that in many cases where NLP claims to
have solved a problem, the subject would have got over his problem in any
case, without any intervention whatsoever ("spontaneous remission").
After all, many psychological problems are self-limiting.  Furthermore,
hypothetically it seems plausible that many other NLP cures are due to
the placebo effect, especially when these cures were done in seminar
demonstrations by very charismatic trainers.  Or perhaps the subject
was suggestible enough to be convinced that his condition was improved
when in fact it was still unchanged.  This is especially plausible when
the problem condition was rather vague and unspecific in the first
place.

In the absence of real information or experience, all these hypothetical
objections must be taken very seriously.  For this reason, I think that
no one should be convinced of the value of NLP simply on the grounds of
anecdotal accounts of personal experiences or testimonials from
therapists who claim to be successful using it, especially when these
therapists have no experience doing any kind of therapy except NLP and
are not aware that all therapists, no matter what their approach,
sometimes have results with particular clients that seem little short of
miraculous.  In fact, such spectacular success stories are also common
from faith healers, crystal healers, and astrological counselors.

On the other hand, I firmly believe that it would be very foolish of
any psychologist to simply ignore NLP, especially when there are
testimonials from therapists with conventional training and much
experience with other approaches who claim consistently good results
with NLP.


author: Bill Goodrich

subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
Chuck, we're still waiting for your answer...

I wrote:

W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD


subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
In article <3es20m$[email]> [email]
    (Bill Goodrich) writes:

Well I'm not a psychologist (in case anybody still needs to be told!),
but I just don't see this.  One of my main complaints about conventional
research in clinical psychology, in fact, is that it seems to be all
empirically driven with very little real scientific thinking and no
attempt to develop a coherent theoretical structure.  And I don't think
that any science can make much progress without good theoretical work.

Is behavioral therapy based on behavioral psychology, for instance?  It
doesn't seem so to me.  As far as I can see, the thing that really
characterizes behavioral therapy is simply the attitude that the goal of
therapy should be to change behavior, not to provide insight or resolve
inner conflicts or whatever.  It seems to me that someone starting with
this attitude and knowing nothing about behavioral psychology but just
using common sense would come up with the same techniques.

Is cognitive therapy based on cognitive psychology?  As far as I can see,
it too is just based on a common sense idea: that people's negative
thoughts cause them to feel bad.  And it just takes this common sense
cause-effect relationship for granted.  It never asks *why* negative
thoughts result in feeling bad, or why the same thought that causes one
person to feel extremely depressed will have no impact at all on some
other person.  If thinking X makes a certain person feel bad, the
approach is to teach them to stop thinking X.  On the other hand, the
thought-stopping technique I learned from Larry Sanders during my NLP
Master Practitioner training works much faster by simply breaking the
link between the thought and the feeling.

I think that NLP is much more theory-driven than conventional clinical
psychology.  Sure, the test of whether an NLP technique is good is
whether it works or not, but those techniques don't arise in the first
place out of magic or from a post-office box in Schennektady.  Some of
them come out of modeling individuals who have a certain skill or don't
have a certain common problem, some have come from modeling extremely
successful therapists such as Satir and Erickson.  But many of them
are derived from applying various assumptions about the way the mind
works.  (In practicular, I think this is true about all the submodality
techniques.)

The NLP trainings I have been through have not consisted simply of
teaching a bunch of techniques.  In practicular, during my Master
Practitioner training from NLP Comprehensive, I was really struck by the
intellectual demands placed on students by some of the instructors who
went into fairly abstruse presentation of topics in linguistics and
psychology.

I believe that the developers of NLP have a lot of major insights into
the way the human mind works that will ultimately prove to be very
influential in the development of scientific psychology.  However these
NLPers have not been practicing academics and consequently there has
not been an attempt to lay out the fundamental ideas behind the NLP
techniques in a systematic theoretical fashion.  One can find these
ideas scattered here and there in books and sometimes one sees them
tossed out almost in throw-away fashion during NLP trainings.   I've
tried to explain a few of these ideas in my archives, in particular in
some of the files labeled roots.*.  (However I have to say that these
articles represent my own particular interpretation of NLP and are
meant as no more than an enticement to get people to learn about it
from the original sources.)

Robert Dilts pointed out in a seminar that in none of the original NLP
books was there anything that could be called a technique.  Leslie
Cameron Bandler's book SOLUTIONS (originally called THEY LIVED HAPPILY
EVER AFTER), five years after THE STRUCTURE OF MAGIC, was the first one
to give techniques.  Up to that point, all the NLP books were books on
on teaching therapists how to *think*.


author: Desmond Sin

subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
In article <3es20m$[email]>, Bill Goodrich writes:

consists of
theory.

This situation reminds of the situation of physics. During the
pre-Newtonian days, people were interested in all kinds of fancy
theories, such as the world was full of ether, etc. The emphasis then
was on they "why" of things. Then physics moved from a "why" to a
"how" model. So instead of coming up with what fancies theories of
gravity, people just described how gravity worked, and the field of
physics improved by leaps and bounds. I see a similar analogy here
with psychology and nlp. The psychologists want their "ether" -- id,
ego, etc. Sooner or later, they will see how limiting their model is,
and that the nlp model is in fact superior.
-Des


subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
Rollin Denniston <[email]> writes:

I disagree with what you seem to be saying, and suspect that you may be
getting "hung up" with labels. In the relevant context, the observation
is not turned inward - it is turned towards the "inner workings" of
other individuals of the same species as the observers. That is quite a
different matter.

I disagree with the notion that the epistomology designed for developing
knowledge of complex interactive systems is somehow inappropriate for
use on that particular complex interactive system. While such systems are
more difficult to observe and characterize than the simple systems used
in high school science classes.

I disagree with your assertion that "you are dealing with a different
set of governing laws" in this case. I think you may be contrasting the
"governing laws" of simple, isolated systems with those of complex,
interactive systems.

I also disagree with your use of the term "metaphysical" in this context.
It carries (what I consider inappropriate) connotations of supernatural
phenomena.

That is true. On the other hand, there is no presupposition that the
object of study can be DIRECTLY observed. That, I suspect, is YOUR
presupposition however.

That statement would seem to confirm the suspicion. The techniques of
observation and experimentation differ, and the granularity (level of
detail) of the "abstract conceptual structures" vary greatly from case
to case. More so when you contrast simple cases with complex ones. That
in no way invalidates the "observe-hypothesize-experiment" paradigm.

That is because there is little or no such validity.

     ^^^^^^^^

Once again, you seem to be hung up on direct observation vs indirect
observation. Even direct observations can be subject to high levels of
noise. That is why there are analytical methods for "reducing" the noise,
and why researchers publish the analytical methodology along with the
data and conclusions. That is why there is the whole field of systems
analysis.

Here I disagree most of all. As I mentioned in another post, NLP is
fundamentally BASED on the epistemology outlined in 1-6, plus an
additional "reduction" process. NLP presents a number of tools for
observation and analysis of subjective experience, rather than an
alternate epistemology. When modeling people in and out of "undesired
states" (or resource states) rather than modeling change agents, that
process is fundamental.

W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD


subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

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

That's the way *you* see NLP.  I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong,
but I just want to make it clear to the folks in sci.psychology that
what you've just said is one interpretation of NLP, not something
inherent within NLP.

To me, the thing that was really striking when I first started reading
about NLP was exactly the opposite of what you have stated.  Namely, I
realized that there is indeed a way of studying subjective experience
objectively --- or at least more objectively than is possible by
introspection.

Namely, even though one can never experience another person's subjective
experience, one can still learn about it by asking that person questions.

Now certainly psychologists (as well as many ordinary people) were doing
that long before NLP.  But the problem has always been the lack of a good
language for discussing subjective experience.   I don't even know
whether the experience that you call "red" is anything at all like my
experience of red.  And when it comes to those words denoting what I
call higher level concepts --- words such as "thought," "anger,"
"honesty" --- there is no way of knowing that two different people mean
the same thing when using the same words.

This is because there is no objective referrent for words referring to
internal subjective experience.  You and I can't be sure that we mean the
same thing by the word "thought" because we can't reduce this word to
things we can point to.  (I think that a little discussion between
several people can demonstrate that this difficulty is not merely
hypothetical.)

To me, the amazing thing I realised when I first started reading NLP is
that one can think of objective experience as being made up of atoms for
which there indeed exists consensual referrents --- namely, images,
sounds, somasthetic ("kinesthetic," as NLP says) feelings, smells, and
tastes.  Even though I don't know for sure what your subjective
experience is when you see a cat, if you say to me "I see an image of a
cat," I have a referrent for your experience, because I know what it's
like to see things (although I don't claim to know what it's like for
*you* to see things) and I know what a cat is.

So once you start asking people questions about their subjective
experience in terms of images, sounds, words, feelings, smells, and
tastes, you get answers by which you can compare the experience of
different people without getting lost in a fog of confusion.
Even though you can't know what another person's experience is actually
like, you can know that two people are talking about the same thing when
they use the same words.

In fact, in many ways this methodology seems superior to introspection
even for understanding one's own subjective experience.  Many people find
that they develop surprising insights into their own thinking when
others ask them questions about it during NLP trainings.  One is also
likely to find that one is better able to understand and control one's
thought processes by paying attention to one's thinking in terms of
images, words, feelings and the like rather than using higher level
concepts.

Now I'm not saying that this point of view was original with NLP.  But
one way of looking at NLP is to think of NLP as a massive experiment
trying out this point of view and seeing how useful it can be.
Furthermore, the best way of doing such an experiment is not by paying
groups of college sophomores to answer questions and then gathering
statistics, but by actually seeing whether the sensory approach can be
used to effectively change people's experience.

Now if you start doing experiments with human subjects where you change
people, you run into a very obvious ethical problem.  But what if,
instead of doing the usual sort of university psychology experiments, you
work with people who are actually seeking to be changed?  People, in
short, who want therapy.  Except that one should interpret "therapy" as
referring to any sort of change the subject desires, even if this amounts
to a cure for nail-biting or procrastination or a desire to be more
resourceful in approaching members of the appropriate sex.  (This
generality is the reason many NLPers prefer the word "changework" rather
than "therapy.")

For years, I have tried to get the scientific psychologists to see how
exciting this idea is.  But in sci.psycholog we continually get bogged
down in questions of the clinical effectiveness of NLP.  These are
important questions, but for the scientist, to concentrate on these
questions is to miss the real excitement of NLP, which is as an
approach to epistemology.  Not "epistemology" in the bastardized sense
it's usually used here, the question of what empirical methodology is
the correct one, but "epistemology" in its original sense --- the study
of the question "How do human beings know things and how do they
organize their knowledge?"

But it's really hard to get academics to look outside their usual frame.
Those on the scientific side of psychology say, "Clinical applications
are not our concern."  (But they should be, because they are such a
marvelous laboratory to test one's theories.)  They say, "These are not
the sort of questions we study."   (Precisely!  If they were then NLP
wouldn't offer anything new.  One of the most valuable things NLP has
to offer the academic psychologist is the questions it raises.)

"We're only concerned with understanding people, not changing them."
(But one of the most effective ways of understanding any system is to
try and change it.) They say, "There are no good clinical studies
showing the effectiveness of NLP."

But all this is beside the point.

Well, I guess if there had been physicists in the time of Galileo they
would have had the same response to his telescopes.  ("Heavenly bodies
have no relevance for us.  We only want to understand the motion of
things like cannonballs.  Looking through telescopes is not scientific
because you can't do an experiment with objects which are millions of
miles away.")


subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

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

I think there are two issues raised here.  The first is the claim that
the only person's experience one can really know is one's own and I've
addressed that in my previous article.

The other issue that relates to the assertion that N=1 is simply that
people are incredibly diverse in the ways they organize their subjective
experience.  (Anyone who doesn't realize this should go through a good
NLP training.)  This is not a unique problem in the sciences, though, and
does not prevent one from developing and testing scientific theories.

It is claimed that no two snowflakes are ever alike, for instance.  But
this doesn't prevent one from having a perfectly satisfactory science of
crystallography.


subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
[email] (Paul Bernhardt) writes:

Amazing how easy it is to suggest that someone ELSE throw away a career
in order to make a point.

The researchers I mentioned were not "proponents of NLP" as you put it.
They were trying to answer a question. Once again, it is interesting to
see how little importance you attach to THEIR careers and professional
standing. This isn't some game, it is their LIVES. They have made the
judgements that the threats are credible and that the potential
consequences outweigh the potential benefits. I must respect their
wishes.

As to what the "proponents of NLP" ARE doing - there are dozens of books
FILLED with replicable/falsifiable results, and more being published all
the time. The gap hasn't been books, it has been "journal" publication -
and those journals (and the organization behind them) are preventing that.

W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD


subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
How interesting: Lee Lady and I disagree on a matter of substance! Maybe
Armageddon IS coming ;->

[email] (Lee Lady) writes:

Once you start using nominalizations like "real scientific thinking" and
"coherent theoretical structure" you are demanding that the researchers
meet your subjective criteria for those constructs. Unfortunately, one
could paraphrase your statement (casting it more in first position) as:

"One of my main complaints about what I have seen of conventional
research in clinical psychology, in fact, is that I don't understand
the underlying theoretical structures and have trouble relating the
apparent methodologies and conclusions of such research to those
structures in any meaningful way. And I don't think that any science
can make much progress without theoretical work I can understand."

Yes. Or more accurately, they have a common philosophical/theoretical
core (which we often call Behaviorism). Behavioral psychology seeks to
validate the underlying model and characterize various phenomena in
terms of that model. Behavioral therapy involves characterizing the
existing (unwanted) condition in terms of that model and applying some
sort of "treatment" (also consistent with that model) to change it in
some desirable manner.

[...]

Same argument, different philosophical/theoretical core.

                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The point is that in NLP, GOOD=IT WORKS, while in the others GOOD=
CONSISTENT WITH THEORY.

And none of them come from pushing, pulling, squeezing, or stretching a
condition to fit a philosophical model and then asking "what does the
model say about what should be done?"

As developer of one set of submodality techniques (the "Personal Angel
Points" techniques), in frequent touch with the developers of others
(eg Steve Andreas' Grief pattern), I disagree. Every submodality pattern
I am familiar with was derived by modeling (in submodality terms) people
with and without some "problem"/resource, then trying out various
submodality changes until the condition changes (followed by the usual
stepwise refinement), or by modeling (in submodality terms) an existing
change agent's technique for a particular change.

Same here.

Very true. BUT...if you go back over your notes (and tapes, if you have
them), you should find a lot of details about the nature of models and
metamodels, but little or no information about the "real" nature of the
mind. Most of the information framed as "peoples' minds SEEM to act AS
THOUGH..." rather than "they act this way BECAUSE the mind REALLY...".
They concentrate on mechanisms, not explanations.

I agree.

Richard and John were Academics, and The Structure of Magic (I & II)
was one attempt to lay out the fundamental ideas behind NLP in a
systematic theoretical fashion. Now neither man is an Academic and the
Structure books are among the least-popular NLP books on the market
(even among Academics). Study those state transitions.

In 1979, FOUR years after TSOM I, Frogs Into Princes was full of
techniques. In the interim, B&G had apparently given up any idea of
regaining Academic careers.

W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD


author: Ron Blum

subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
Desmond Sin <[email]> writes:

Actually, if anything, the reverse is true.  The "how" was not the
problem: the "why" was the problem.  People knew that the planets
orbit around the earth, and that things fall down, not up--they
knew the "how."  In terms of "why," people has all sorts of
fancy theories, as you put.  When Newton interpreted the planetary
orbits, etc., in terms of gravity, etc., he explained "why"
objects in the universe behave as tehy do.  Rather then saying
how objects fall down, he explained why they fell.

By this analogy, the NLP model--if of any use at all--only describes
how things occur, but does not provide an explanation for why certain
things occur.  Psychology, unlike NLP (from what you say), is attempting
to provide an explanation for "why" things occur, instead of just
describing what happens.

Ron


subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
The topic was comparisons between NLP and academic clinical psychology,
in particular, the balance between theory and empirically derived
approaches in each case (realizing that, in the case of NLP, "empirical"
is not to be understood as synonymous with "statistical").

In article <3ff34g$[email]> [email]
    (Bill Goodrich) writes:

I'm certainly glad you added the smiley.  In fact, I think that a whole
bunch of them would have been appropriate.

You certainly know a lot more about clinical psychology as an academic
discipline than I do.  In fact, I always risk making a fool of myself
when I comment on the subject.  But sometimes there are things I seem
to see that I really feel a need to speak out on, and if I'm wrong,
I'm willing to be corrected.  In this case, I'll comment further in a
separate article.

It's also likely that you understand a lot more about NLP than I do, and
I'm glad you're giving me the opening to say something I've wanted to for
a long time.

I started posting articles on NLP almost from the very beginning of
sci.psychology.  At that time there was nobody else in the newsgroup who
knew much about the subject and it bothered me that there were so many
academics or graduate students who would say, "NLP?  What is that?  I've
never heard of it."

In those days, it was pretty obvious that the people who criticized NLP
had no conception at all of what it was.  It was referred to as a cult
or a "new age pseudo-science."  It was clear that people were assuming
that it was some sort of belief system, analogous to est or to
Scientology.  It also seemed that many academics assumed that it
claimed to be a general scientific theory of psychology, an alternative
to academic scientific psychology.  The clinicians, on the other hand,
assumed that it had the same objectives as they have, namely to cure
psychological disorders.

Arguing on those terms wasn't accomplishing very much.  As so often in
arguments, people heard (or read) what they expected to hear, not what I
actually wrote.  And so it seemed that the first step in getting some
kind of acceptance of NLP, or at least interest in it, would be to try
and explain what sort of thing it actually is.

This also gave me the opportunity to write down my own thoughts on what
NLP is really about.  I did this with considerable trepidation, nervously
awaiting the day when some true expert on NLP would say, "You dumb shit,
you don't know the first thing about NLP!"  Strangely enough, this never
did happen.  From time to time some people did join the newsgroup who
seemed much more expert than myself, but we actually had very few
disagreements and these were very polite.  (Perhaps out of the feeling
that since we NLPers are such a minority here in sci.psychology we'd damn
well better stick together instead of attacking each other.)  And I was
somewhat relieved when I met Charles Faulkner during the Master
Practitioner Training in Colorado in 1992 and he said he'd read many of
my articles and thought my understanding of NLP was very good.

Nonetheless, I felt --- and still feel --- a little odd when I started to
realize that over the course of time many people were accepting me as
some kind of NLP guru.  NLP students would write asking my advice on
particular topics or asking me to recommend trainings for them to take.

This got a lot worse a couple of years ago when I decided to archive the
best of my articles so that I wouldn't have to keep reposting them every
year or so.  Finally, I added a disclaimer to the README file in my
archive, stating that when it comes to NLP I consider myself not an
expert but a mere electronic journalist, reporting on what I know as best
I can.  Maybe I need to strengthen that disclaimer to emphasize that I do
not consider my articles as a definitive treatment of NLP, but merely an
enticement to get people to read some of the books, maybe look at some of
the videotapes and possibly even go through a training.  (I try my best
to encourage therapists to go through NLP training.  I don't really
encourage others to do so, although I don't discourage it either.  I can
only say that as the result of my first NLP training I made dramatic
positive changes in my own life.  I can't promise that it will be the
same for anyone else.)

To me, usenet is not a place to learn The Truth.  It's a place to find
out about new and exciting things that one might want to learn more about
from other sources.


subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
[email] (Ron Blum) writes:

That was the "what" rather than the "how". The "how" was the fact that
any two (or more) physical bodies are attracted towards each other
in direct proportion to mass and inverse proportion to distance. The
"why" at the time ranged from Angelic Influences to the aforesaid ether.
The modern "why" is the localized curvature of spacetime.

The laws of Thermodynamics, Gravity, and Motions are descriptions of
"how" things consistantly act (according to Newton's observations)
rather than "why" they do so. He gave names (such as gravity) to those
mechanisms, but that did not make them "whys".

Per the above, he didn't explain "why" they behaved that way, he
systematically explained "how" they behaved in more detail. The "forces"
of gravity, inertia/momentum, entropy, and the like were constructs
implied in those descriptions rather than explanations of those
behaviors.

We still do the same thing. We use the construct "centrifugal force" to
describe certain phenomena even though we know that it is actually a
combination of linear inertia and any of a number of constraining
mechanisms (which continually change the direction of travel). In other
words, we say something "trys" to go outward when it really "trys" to go
in a straight line and something else keeps pulling it some other way.
A weight spun around at the far end of a rope feels like it is pulling
outward (in proportion to the weight and speed of rotation), but it is
trying to move in a straight line at any given time (just let go), and
the rope (and the person/thing spinning it) keep it from doing so and
add energy in a new direction (continually). "Centrifugal force" helps
describe "how" the weight seems to act (in a quantifiable way), but it
certainly doesn't explain "why" it does so.

Exactly. And that is why it may be tremendously useful. Just as Newton's
more detailed descriptions of "how" things behaved made it easier (or
practical at all) to use and modify those behaviors in a systematic way,
NLP's more detailed descriptions of how people (/minds) behave have given
rise to streamlined, effective techniques for changing those behaviors in
a systematic way. In both cases, the ability to systematically change the
system (yes, I use that word a lot) under study greatly improves the
ability to understand that system.

A worthy endeavor in and of itself. As is the study of subatomic
particles and intra-particulate forces. And the study of Theology. "Why"
is an important question for its own sake.

No one is suggesting that civil, mechanical, and electronic engineering
should be the exclusive domain of those trained in the "whys" of
subatomic physics. OTOH, there are many groups trying to enforce the
notion that psychotherapy should be the exclusive domain of those
trained in the "whys" of some school of psychology. Not only do they
assume that the "why" can tell them the "how" for these processes, they
assume that ONLY the "why" can tell them the "hows" for those processes.
And they oppose technologies which can help the understand the "why" by
manipulating the "what" with the "how".

Just as many found blasphemy in the earlier researchers' "hows" (and
attempts to find the "hows").

W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD


author: Rich Mechaber

subject: Lathe Shut-Off Design

text:
I'm learning to using a friend's lathe, and occasionally I feed the
tool  too quickly into the part being turned such that the lathe jams.
It's probably got a clutch somewhere inside or the motor would
self-destruct after a few such events, but, as I have to shut the
machine off to safely back the tool out and re-chuck the piece anyway, I
thought an automatic shut-off would be good.

My thought was to run the power to the lathe through a Triac, kept on
only so long as the lathe was turning.  My question is, is there a
simple way to determine this electronically?  I know there are
photo-controlled tachometers, but they're pretty expensive.  I'm trying
to do this on the cheap.

Thanks for any ideas,
Rich Mechaber


author: Dan Akers

subject: Re: Lathe Shut-Off Design

text:
Rich wrote;
"My question is, is there a simple way to determine this electronically?
I know there are photo-controlled tachometers, but they're pretty
expensive. I'm trying to do this on the cheap."
_____________________________________
Re;
Another low tech and inexpensive solution can be found on many small
gasoline engine speed governors (lawn mowers especially) which use a
paddle located near the cooling blower of the engine.  The pressure of
the blower air impinging on the paddle is used as feed back to the
throttle bias spring.  If the lathe motor has a cooling fan and it does
stall when the business end of the lathe stalls, you might be able to
use a microswitch with an attached sheet metal air paddle and lever arm
to latch in a power relay which in turn provides power to the motor.  A
normally open push button could be used for start-up.  Just an idea...

-Dan Akers


author: Rich Grise

subject: Re: Lathe Shut-Off Design

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

I might be raining on your parade, but ANY kind of automatic shutoff when
the tool jams and stalls the part is a _very_ _bad_ _idea_. You need to
learn tool control, and while you're learning, keep your other hand right
next to the off button. And take off your necktie. The ONLY thing I'd
recommend is a circuit breaker rated such that it pops at the motor's
stall current. Even then, if something gets entrained, (like your hair,
or your shirt) you need your emergency stop switch to engage the brake.

I work in a machine shop. One of my buddies is fond of telling the
story about the guy who was using a horizontal boring mill (kind of
like a drill press, but sideways) - a VERY large machine, and the
spindle was turning at about 1 RPM. The guy got his sleeve caught in
the cutter, and it dragged him around the spindle (did I say a very
large machine?), and the only other guy in the shop was the sweeper,
who didn't know about the emergency stop button - he saw the guy
going kaflop-kaflop-kaflop around this spindle, blood everywhere, and
the only thing the sweeper knew to do was to cut power at the breaker
box. So the machine coasted to a stop, and the guy got kaflopped
another few times. The machinist (according to this guy's story)
lost an arm and part of his chest.

If you want to do any serious machine work, learn safety procedures,
learn not to jam your tool into the part so hard that it stalls the
machine's motor, and if it's big enough to take off a finger, don't
use it alone.

I'm not a machinist, but even _I_ know that if I'm feeding the tool
into the part hard enough to stall the machine's motor, I'm doing
something way wrong.

Aluminum, I got shown not too long ago, can be cut quite aggressively.
I was surprised how easy it was to drill 304 stainless; but if you're
working something hard, you really need some kind of training, or
at least a coach. I almost SMP when my mentor put a 6-32 tap in a
hand drill - cut about 6 hours off the job; but you have to know
what you can get away with.

Good Luck, and Be Safe!
Rich


author: "stellite"

subject: Re: Lathe Shut-Off Design

text:
An interesting idea. I would suggest a foot operated power off switch. Many
industrial metal cutting lathes I have used have one that was built into the
machine and runs the length of the bed.

I have never noticed a clutch in the lathes I have used, usually the drive
belt slips or parts/tools/shards go flying when the lathe spindle stops as
you described. If it is a small lathe I suppose the motor may also stall.

Be careful, lathes are dangerous.


author: Gary Tait

subject: Re: Lathe Shut-Off Design

text:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:17:05 -0500, Rich Mechaber <[email]>
wrote:

You can attach magnets to a shafe, and use a hall sensor to pick up
the magnetic pulses from the rotating shaft, af feed those pulses to a
missing pulse detector, which will keep the motor engaged as long as
pulses are being sensed.


subject: Re: Lathe Shut-Off Design

text:
Rich wrote;
"My question is, is there a simple way to determine this electronically?
I know there are photo-controlled tachometers, but they're pretty
expensive. I'm trying to do this on the cheap."
_____________________________________
Re;
Electric cloths dryers typically have a replaceable centrifugal switch
attached to the motor shaft that interlocks the resistance heaters to
energize only if the blower motor is running.  You might be able to rig
one to the lathe motor shaft and devise a simple latch circuit with a
normally open push button and the centrifugal switch such that when the
motor starts to stall (if indeed it does), the switch drops out and
shuts down the lathe.  Not very high tech but it seems to work for
dryers.

-Dan Akers


subject: Re: Lathe Shut-Off Design

text:
Thanks for all the assistance and words of caution.  Actually, I am
working on a puny lathe (that nonetheless has enough power to hurl 1/2
lb. of brass 8 feet in an instant, as I discovered) for clockmaking.
Point being, it's very easy to stall this motor while I'm learning.
Under the tutelage of a machinist, who also occasionally stalls the
motor.  Yes, I try to keep my hand on or near the kill switch, but I do
not like its location and I occasionally need two hands on the feed
screw to provide a smooth feed rate to the cutting tool.  Maybe the foot
pedal is a good idea, but I'd want it in *series* with the main switch
so I don't accidentally step on the *&^% thing...

My idea is not for safety: that's what the hand on the kill switch is
for.  It's more so that  the lathe doesn't suffer stall speeds for the
1/2 second it takes me to react and shut it off.  Maybe it's not even a
problem for the machine, but it seems like poor design to allow a
stalled machine to remain energized like this.  It's a Shurline lathe.
Brass, BTW, is notorious at allowing steel to grab and lock, I am told.

Rich Mechaber

Rich Grise wrote:


subject: Re: Lathe Shut-Off Design

text:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 14:52:55 -0500 (EST), [email] (Dan
Akers) wrote:

In the case of dryer motor switches, the switches themselves are
replaceable, but the centrifugal mechanism generally is fixed to
the motor's armature, and besides is engineered to run at the motor
speed.


author: adamk

subject:
Re: (Counterfactual) If musatov Had any Talent. Loser is as Loser
 does.

text:
He would be writing a popular blog, or a column

 somewhere. He would be a popular author.

   He is neither. No one is interested in anything

 he has to say. So he has to force his garbage here.

 Loser is as Loser does, fucko.


author: [redacted]

subject:
A Loser is a Loser. That is factual... <stdio.h> # Include #
 include typede

text:
<stdio.h> # Include # include typedef struct node <alloc.h> / / define the type NOD
      (Int no;
int square;
struct node * link;
      NOD);
NOD * create (void) / / create function, return address head
 (NOD * head, * p, * pc;
   int i, long;
   printf ("\ n \ n \ n \ create simple chained list \ n \ n");
   Long = sizeof (node);
   pc = (NOD *) malloc (long) / / pc is a current pointer in November he will make adresel
   head = pc;
   printf ("give information element");
   scanf ("% d", & i);
   while (i> 0) / / create the list ends negative number
    (P = pc, / / pointer to keep the new address
      p-> n = i, / / loading information
      p-> square = i * i;
      pc = (NOD *) malloc (long) / / required a new memory address
      p-> link = pc, / / pointer link is tied to the new address
      printf ("give information element");
      scanf ("% d", & i);
    )
   p-> link = NULL, / / last node of the list has link = NULL pointer
   free (pc) / / last issue addresses actually not part of the list
   return head; / / return address of the head list
 )
void display (NOD * p) / / function to display the list (while (p! = NULL) / / how much time I reached the last node (printf ("\ n% d and the square of the number or% d", p -> No p-> square) p = p-> link, / / transition to next node list
    )
)
void main (void) / / main function
(NOD * head;
  clrscr ();
  head = create (), / / address list is known by the head
  display (head);
  Getcha ();
)


subject: Re: A Loser is a Loser. And I know musatov is a Loser. Period

text:
And he dropped out of college.
   And his marriage failed.
   And his writing career failed.
   And now he is a spamming , unethical parasite.


author: Aurora Henry

subject: Vibrational spectra of silicates

text:
I recently found a book _Vibrational Spectra and Structure of Silicates_
by A.N. Lazarev.  I was interested in using it for a senior project, but
when I broached the subject with my chemistry advisor she told me that
it was problably using a method that our FTIR is not able to handle (I
believe she said reflectance).  Even after reading it, I am not sure if
he is using transmittance or some other method with his silicates.  The
book was published in 1972.  Has anyone ever heard of using normal FTIR
methods to study the structure of silicates?  Any help would be
appreciated.

Sincerely,


subject: Re: Vibrational spectra of silicates

text:
Hi,
There's actually a fairly large volume of information on this subject,
done by Dr. Jack Salisbury, ex- of U.S. Geological Survey, now at Johns
Hopkins College of Terrestial and Space Science (I thinks that's the
department title). All were done in reflectance, as I'm sure Lazarev's
data was done. Most likely Lazarev used KBr pellets or an early biconical
accessory; Salisbury used an integrating sphere accessory (we built
it...), and characterized hundreds of silicates.
If you would like to get in touch with Dr. Salisbury, give me a call at
work (my e-mail's at home and my database here doesn't have him on it),
and I;ll give you phone # and an intro. He's a good guy and very helpful.
Regards,
[email] (aka Dr. Art Springsteen/R&D/Labsphere Inc. 603-927-4266
or fax @603-927-4694)


subject: infrared spectroscopy and reference methods

text:
Hi
I need the following information as soon as possible please:

1 - Precedures for moisture measurements using (forced-air convection)
    oven methods
2 - Procedure and equipment for measuring glucose using HPLC (High Performance
    Liquid Chromatography)
3 - Procedure and implications of partial least squares analysis in near
    infrared spectroscopy

Any info will be highly appreciated.

Thanks

[email]


author: Weatherlawyer

subject: Re: Very large high pressure area

text:
On Jan 31, 6:49 pm, "Togless" <[email]> wrote:

I am not into conspiracy theory, though of course there are good
reasons to suspect them. Mental alertness and electronic instruments
misbehaving, that sort of thing otoh....

Or maybe it is just the High saying 'bye to Paul Bartlett.

But here is someone else's take on things:

Nothing much on here yet:

Try next Wodens Day.


subject: Re: Very large high pressure area

text:
On Feb 2, 3:39 am, Weatherlawyer <[email]> wrote:

Why is it only me that can see these things?

3rd
5.7	 VANUATU
5.4	 VANUATU
6	 VANUATU

2nd
5.1	 VANUATU
5.1	 VANUATU
5.2	 VANUATU
5.5	 VANUATU
5	 VANUATU
5.3	 VANUATU
7.1	 VANUATU
5.5	PNG
5	PNG
5.4	PNG
5	PERU
5	 MACQUARIE ISLAND

1st
5.3	 EASTER ISLAND REGION
5.6	 SOUTHERN SUMATRA, INDONESIA
5.2	 SAMAR, PHILIPPINES

31st
5.1	 VANUATU

30th
5.2	 SIMEULUE, INDONESIA
6.3	 NEAR THE COAST OF CENTRAL PERU

29th
5	 NORTHERN MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE
5.2	 NORTHERN MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE
5	 KYUSHU, JAPAN
5.2	 MINDANAO, PHILIPPINES

28th
5	 KERMADEC ISLANDS, NEW ZEALAND
5.3	 PAPUA, INDONESIA
5.4	 KERMADEC ISLANDS, NEW ZEALAND
5.4	 KERMADEC ISLANDS, NEW ZEALAND
5.2	 KERMADEC ISLANDS, NEW ZEALAND
5.3	 KERMADEC ISLANDS, NEW ZEALAND
5.8	 KERMADEC ISLANDS, NEW ZEALAND

Can you not at least see that if anything is full to bursting it will
all go pop not a couple of places.

For want of a more intelligent audience I will explain:

There is a link with Kermadec and Vanuatu. It is similar with Tonga
and Japan. It seems there is a crux at the Fiji, Tonga Vanuatu
triangle.

Anyway. Before a considerable seismic event such as the above, there
is an hiatus with things.
As you can see.
(As opposed to will see, you stupid, stupid bastards.)


author: kolldata

subject: Re: Very large high pressure area

text:
I did the weather thing in Florida, living outside, riding long
commutes on a bicycle year long discovering 3 original weather - EQ
replicable links use able for predicitng quakes and weather.

Here at BLM  Imperial Dam on the Colorado above Yuma AZ following
summers on San Juan Island WA, time around interior OR/WA, I'm
reminded how much easier it is collecting linkage data from simple
weather local systems.

Coastal Washington is waaaay to complex fooling NOAA 7 of 10. Here and
in Florida we know where the wind comes from and where it goes.


subject: Re: Very large high pressure area

text:
On Feb 4, 3:50 am, kolldata <[email]> wrote:

I am, as ever, amazed by your insights. And complex lack of human
connective tissue.

What is BLM?
Bacon, Lettuce and Mustard?


subject: Re: Very large high pressure area

text:
bowel leg mud...

the hi, I have not seen it or looked, 'means' winter weather went
elsewhere for days poss due to the solar storm(+ global warming) I
assume we'll get it.
The global EQ cycle paused 2-3 days ago then went back to lthe cycle
b4 with movement toward Honshu. I have no idea if this is related to
weather or weather is related to it which is the prob in WA/OR.
Weather seems related to EQ but remains fuzzier than AZ or FL where
systems are distinct.

BLM Bureau of land management and USDA takes control of vast acreages
when miners and timber barons finish raping the land, disappear into
the vaults leaving land funded by taxpayers
The government then protects the land otherwise it would be ruined.


subject: Re: Very large high pressure area

text:
On Feb 4, 3:32 pm, kolldata <[email]> wrote:

I almost understood that.

Pardon?

Let me see if I can decode this one.

The weather patterns in Arizona? and Florida? show indistinct?
patterns

I have no idea what the prob in waor is.

If I didn't know better I would say you are showing signs of wit.
Am I to assume you are not witless?


author: Eeyore

subject: Re: Energy and matter

text:
habshi wrote:

Did you not understand the first time round you complete and utter
pea-brained IDIOT ?

Suggest you read this ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exothermic_reaction

Notably .....

" In an exothermic reaction, the total energy absorbed in bond breaking is
less than the total energy released in bond making. In other words, the
energy needed for the reaction to occur is less than the total energy
provided. As a result of this, the extra energy is released, usually in
the form of heat. "

Bond breaking / making does not result in change of mass.

Graham


author: habshi

subject: Re: Energy and matter

text:
What is meant by bond breaking? What are these bonds. Are they
a kind of gluons or quarks or neutrinos or some other form of matter
which is destroyed in an exothermic reaction , and formed in an
endothermic ones. In short what particle carries the bond linkage?
These are profound questions at the very heart of particle physics.


author: daestrom

subject: Re: Energy and matter

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

Even in nuclear fission and fusion, where there is little doubt that energy
comes from the conversion of matter, the change in mass does not come from
the conversion of atomic particles (such as electrons) from mass to energy.
Calculating the change in binding energy in a typical fission event does not
result in the loss of any electrons.  Part of the reason for this is that
charge must be conserved in the reaction.

While the energy released in an exothermal chemical reaction may very well
come from a change in mass, the amount of mass change to account for this
energy is so incredibly small as to be immeasurable.  So the idea is
untestable.  *Theoretically*, the separation and recombination of atoms in
various molecules could result in a change in mass akin to that of binding
energy changes in a nucleus, but several orders of magnitude smaller.

For all practical purposes, the mass can be considered exactly the same
before and after such chemical reactions.

daestrom


author: Uncle Al

subject: Re: Energy and matter

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

Feel beter?


author: K

subject: ||||||  AMALGAMS ARE 50% MERCURY AND ARE POISONING YOUR BODY VERY SLOWLY ||||||

text:
05/10/2001
The Wall Street Journal
Page B1
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

Dentists are suing state regulators over what they contend is a gag order
preventing them from discussing with patients the potential health hazards
of
the most common form of dental filling.

At issue are those silver-colored fillings that dot most people's teeth.
Referred to by the dental profession as silver amalgam, the fillings are
actually about half mercury, with some silver, copper, tin and zinc mixed
in.

Mercury opponents argue that mercury vapor coming from the fillings seeps
into the body, contributing to a range of health problems from fatigue and
immunity suppression to neurological diseases such as Parkinson's and
Alzheimer's. The dental establishment, including the American Dental
Association, argues that the low level of vapor causes no harm and that
raising such safety issues with patients would unduly alarm them. The
science
on the issue is inconclusive.

The suit was filed yesterday in federal court in Greenbelt, Md., by five
dentists and seven patients claiming injury from the mercury in their
fillings. The plaintiffs argue that dental regulators use "control of dental
licenses to punish, or to threaten punishment of, dentists who criticize
mercury amalgam," violating the dentists' First Amendment rights. In 1999,
for example, the suit claims that the Maryland Board of Dental Examiners
ordered dentist Bill DeLong to stop testing his patients to determine
whether
mercury vapor was coming off their fillings. (The case was eventually
dropped.)

The dentists' attorney, Charles Brown of Washington, D.C., says the
plaintiffs want the court to order licensing boards to stop enforcing any
policy that "prevents, limits or intimidates dentists" from discussing the
controversy or advocating "mercury-free" dentistry. The suit also seeks
certification as a defendants' class action naming 50 of the country's 52
licensing agencies.

In a statement released yesterday, Maryland's licensing-board administrator,
Art Williams, said the board "acted lawfully and has done so in order to
protect consumers."

The dental establishment maintains that some dentists have used the
controversy over mercury's safety to encourage patients to remove amalgam
fillings and replace them with more expensive materials such as gold,
porcelain and a tooth-colored resin composite. Resin, the least expensive
alternative, costs as much as 25% more than fillings containing mercury.

J. Rodway Mackert Jr., a professor at the Medical College of Georgia who is
an ADA spokesman, says that discussing mercury when patients are in the
dentist's chair would be a disservice to them. "If you have one side
claiming
it isn't safe, that doesn't mean that side is right," he says.

Nevertheless, state legislatures in New York and Maine are debating bills
that would require dentists to disclose to patients the makeup of their
fillings. New York Assemblyman Richard Brodsky's bill would also ban
dentists
from filling cavities in pregnant women and children with mercury. A Vermont
bill would require dental offices to track how much mercury they use in
fillings. And California's dental board is considering spelling out the pros
and cons of different fillings in a consumer fact sheet.

Minnesota's dental board may also become more amenable to alternatives to
mercury. In 1999, Minneapolis dentist Ronald King, who advertises "dental
care that integrates conventional and alternative philosophy," was appointed
to the board by Gov. Jesse Ventura. He is now on a committee that hears
complaints about dentists, including mercury-free dentists. Dr. King says
other board members now see him "as a colleague instead of a weird guy with
his own agenda."

The Amalgam Wars began in the mid-1800s, when dentists first started using
mercury-based material to treat tooth decay. Originally, it was the dentists
who used mercury who came under fire from colleagues who didn't believe it
was as safe as gold or tooth extractions. But soon, mercury became the
material of choice, mostly because it was cheaper and easier to use -- and
it
was less painful than having hot gold poured into a tooth. In 1976, when the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration began regulating medical devices, it
grandfathered in mercury-based fillings as an approved dental material.

The ADA, which once had a patent on mercury fillings, maintains that mercury
is safe once it is mixed with other metals and set in teeth, but it warns
dentists about the "potential hazard of mercury vapor" when they handle the
material.

In a 1999 report, the Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a
division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, concluded
there
is no apparent health hazard but urged further study to "determine the
possibility of more subtle behavioral or immune-system effects, and to
determine the level of exposure that may lead to adverse effects in
sensitive
populations." Fillings could contribute as much as 75% of a person's daily
mercury exposure, the report said, noting that the vapor is released during
chewing and because of corrosion.

Judith Baker, a South Bend, Ind., accountant and a plaintiff in the Maryland
suit, was so sick she had her gallbladder removed in 1999. But another
doctor
later diagnosed her with mercury poisoning stemming from a new filling
containing mercury and the replacement of two old mercury fillings with a
larger one. Ms. Baker says she was skeptical and had her well water tested
for mercury and her house tested for fumes before asking a dentist to remove
her fillings earlier this year. She says she is starting to feel better
after
going through mercury detoxification treatment.

Boyd Haley, a University of Kentucky chemist who has published several
studies using rats and human brain samples, says his work shows that brain
tissue exposed to mercury develops the same biochemical defects seen in
Alzheimer's disease. But even Dr. Haley doesn't theorize that the fillings
cause significant adverse health effects in everyone. "Certain patients, due
to genetics or illness or other toxic exposures, could be more sensitive to
the amount of mercury normally released from dental amalgams," he says.

The ADA responds by pointing to a study published in its journal that
concluded that mercury in fillings "does not appear" to be a factor in the
development of Alzheimer's disease. But one of the study's authors, chemist
Charles Cornett, is wary of that conclusion. He says the study failed to
evaluate how different people process mercury, among other factors.

Two large clinical trials sponsored by the National Institutes of Health are
now under way with the goal of determining how school children with and
without mercury fillings develop. Results of those studies won't be known
until at least 2005.

Meanwhile, the Maryland board is proposing a new rule that states that
removing "serviceable mercury amalgam restorations" is unprofessional
without
informed consent that includes telling the patient that "there are no
verifiable systemic health benefits resulting from the removal."

Dr. DeLong strongly disagrees. After he removes their mercury-base fillings,
he says, patients "report not only feeling better but having whatever
problems they came in with disappear over time."


author: dan, dhrm77

subject: Re: ||||||  AMALGAMS ARE 50% MERCURY AND ARE POISONING YOUR BODY VERY SLOWLY ||||||

text:
I don't think that the biggest danger from mercury-silver amalgams are "vapors", but more likely
that when 2 or more amalgams have slightly different composition, the natural acidity of the mouth
creates the electrolysis of one or more of the amalgams, which let mercury ions get into the
digestive system.
You can verify this fact very easily by using a simple voltmeter and measuring the voltage between
any 2 amalgams.
The voltage is usually below 0.25 volt.
It takes about around 30 volts to electrolyze significant amount of silver out of the amalgams.
Below 1 volt, the process is extremely slow, but still exist. This means that the amount of metals
electrolized out of the amalgams are extremely small, however, over a long period of time of
constant electrolysis ( and usually people keep their amalgams for 30 years or more...), the amount
of toxic metals will not be negligable.

Additionally, the same current that electrolyse the amalgams, can also affect the correct function
of the brain. Many cases of depression have been linked to the presence of amalgams of different
metals.
When those amalgams are replaced with white fillings, the depression regresses.

If you find a voltage between any 2 amalgams that is above 0.25 volt, I suggest replacing them.

Hope this has been helpful to many people.

Dan.

"K" <[email]> wrote in message news:_cyL6.115$[email]...


author: pudge

subject:
Re: ||||||  AMALGAMS ARE 50% MERCURY AND ARE POISONING YOUR BODY VERY
 SLOWLY ||||||

text:
Well, I tried it.

Got no reading at all.
I have one silver filling, and the wife has one........didn't measure a thing on the meter?

What's the big worry?

Pudge

"dan, dhrm77" wrote:


author: Kristofer D. Dale

subject: Re: ||||||  AMALGAMS ARE 50% MERCURY AND ARE POISONING YOUR BODY VERY  SLOWLY ||||||

text:
In misc.health.alternative pudge <[email]> wrote:

Try taking a reading between the fillings during sexual intercourse...

                                  ;^]


author: Eric Chomko

subject: Re: FWD: Henry in Absentia

text:
On Aug 9, 12:09 am, Fred J. McCall <[email]> wrote:

I'm sure you have hoobies other swould find odd as well.

So?

That was not what this machine was. It was a regular PCI system with
built in video on board.

I was speaking about a specific system before you lost your mind here.

Yep and all crap, IMO.

How many years McClod? PCIe is new.

There was no AGP slot on this system, though it had PCI slots. The
video was onboard. Geez...

Because you KNOW that it would work with all your software, etc. Has
PCIe replaced PCI 100% WRT to all OSs (Windows, Linix, etc.) Is PCIe
COMPLETELY transparent to the OS?

Good, I think I'll upgrade.

Does PCIe use more or less power?

No one said "dead" but you. We'll have to see if PCIe really does take
over 100%. It looks like serial is the wave of the future over
parallel due to timing skew.

One of Henry's SCSI controllers of course!

Fred, you are right about one thing. It will be fun and worth it to
learn about PCIe and how and if it replaces parallel compeletly and
see if Firewire can compete. Speaking of which, since Apple has gone
to Pentium chips made by Intel (dropping PowerPC) and Intel created
PCIe, will Apple computers use PCIe or Firewire for their internal
"bus"? The reason I ask is that Mil-STD 1394 (Firewire) is expected to
replace Mil-STD 1553 for space applications. If Apple doesn't support
their own technology in a manner to compete with Intel's PCIe by using
PCIe, why should the space industry rely,use and trust a Mil-STD
version of Firewire over a Mil-STD version of PCIe? Both being
potential replacements for Mil-STD 1553, which everyone agrees is just
too slow these days. I find it ironic that PCIe being a serial
interface is more like 1553, which was the space standard for years,
that traditional parallel computer busses. Clearly, USB and Firewaire
have made a huge influence on the advent of PCIe.

All that said, I find that after learning the new technology and
getting it, etc. I like going back and tinkering with the older stuff
I can actually solder.


subject: Re: FWD: Henry in Absentia

text:
On Aug 22, 9:20 am, Fred J. McCall <[email]> wrote:

Which I corrected right away.

Face it Freddy, despite your CS degree I have you beat. :)

You made a (another) sweeping statement about CPUs without thinking
(often) and I brought up the fact that Celerons and Pentiums can be in
both laptops (PCMCIA) and desktops (PCI). Your comment about
compatibility is false.

Get a better understand about things before making generalaizations.

Your comments about my statements are much more ignorant than anything
I have stated.

By the time that the previous generation is gone or on its way out.
Think about when PCI replaced ISA. And to your 'no response' comment,
must be nice being a desk jockey for a fact DOD contractor.

...or is it just you that is fat? LOL!!!!!!!

Made "A", is the operative letter here...

Yes, that is why you did.

At least I know what a shift register is.

PCIe 2004 according to a variety of sources.

Sure thing Freddy. Like conceived and born.

Lost you again, Freddy?

But for how much? Wanna bet that PCI mobos go real cheap soon?

read wiki...2004. the other site...2004.

Then why do they came 2004? Are you sure that all the bugs weren't
worked out until 2004? You can claim anything until it actually works.
When did the first PCIe mobo that came out that ACTUALLY WORKED?

They have been working an Mil-STD, rad-hard, 1394 for years Freddy.
When was it invented? Answer the question!!


author: kT

subject: Re: FWD: Henry in Absentia

text:
Eric Chomko wrote:

Many older systems have Rage Pro Turbos onboard in AGP configuration
(virtual slot in hardware) with four or eight megs of video RAM.

They're great for 2D, almost worthless for 3D. Hence, the PCI boards.

If you like that kind of stuff, here's the dinosaur to watch for :

http://www.tipperlinne.com/p2bmod


author: Fred J. McCall

subject: Re: FWD: Henry in Absentia

text:
Eric Chomko <[email]> wrote:

:On Aug 9, 12:09 am, Fred J. McCall <[email]> wrote:
:> Eric Chomko <[email]> wrote:
:>
:> :On Aug 7, 11:13 pm, Fred J. McCall <[email]> wrote:
:> :> Eric Chomko <[email]> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :On Aug 7, 11:29 am, "Jeff Findley" <[email]>
:> :> :wrote:
:> :> :> "Eric Chomko" <[email]> wrote in message
:> :> :>
:> :> :>news:[email]...
:> :> :>
:> :> :>
:> :> :>
:> :> :> > But never with a proprietary system like Dell. Best to stay generic
:> :> :> > with a basic but sturdy case and PS, a good motherboard and add-on
:> :> :> > components that are universal.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Unfortunately, even that does not stay constant.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> At one time, BTX was going to be the standard motherboard form factor of the
:> :> :> future.  But it wasn't to be, so if you jumped on the BTX bandwagon, you're
:> :> :> stuck buying a new case when your BTX motherboard dies.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Same thing with power supplies.  More recent ATX power supplies have new
:> :> :> plugs for motherboards, SATA drives, and even some power hungry graphics
:> :> :> cards (if I recall correctly).  It seems like everything today is getting
:> :> :> power hungry, so the old power supply might be too small, even if it's got
:> :> :> all the right connectors.
:> :> :
:> :> :Agreed. There is no single solution over time. SATA doesn't seem to be
:> :> :selling in large quantities. It seems like IDE is still on top. USB is
:> :> :huge and PCI for basic I/O and AGP for graphics is still the standard
:> :> :last time I built a system (~ year ago).
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> What time warp are you living in?
:> :>
:> :> Do you frequently build outdated systems?
:> :>
:> :
:> :I have and sold them too!
:> :
:>
:> Birds of a feather, I guess, since you must know a lot of stupid
:> people to be building obsolete systems as new builds and getting
:> people to buy them.
:
:I'm sure you have hoobies other swould find odd as well.
:

I'm sure I don't have "hoobies" at all.

:
:>
:> :
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :A friend asked me about fixing a Dell system with built-in graphics.
:> :> :One with a small case. Maybe it was E-Machines, ...
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Big, BIG difference there, El Chimpko.  I know that *I* am certainly
:> :> impressed by this bit of hardware expertise on your part.
:> :
:> :The small case McClod. No, AGP slot, 3 PCIs at most, smaller form
:> :factor for motherboard.
:> :
:>
:> There is a difference between case size and motherboard form factor
:> and BRAND, Monkey Boy.
:
:So?
:

So as usual you have stupidly blown it.

:
:>
:> And you need to get out more.  The reason eMachines don't have an AGP
:> slot is because they have a 16-lane PCIe slot instead.  Plus SATAII
:> drives and DDR2 memory.
:>
:
:That was not what this machine was. It was a regular PCI system with
:built in video on board.
:

Yet once again El Chimpko has lost his own context.  Let me help.

Eric: "anyway, I told him to stick with closest thing to a standard
based upon what sells best in the market without cutting corners. That
means get a mobo with an AGP slot and a case with a big PS."

Eric, you ignorant slut.  When was the last "regular PCI system" with
no AGP slot?

:
:>
:> You get that, El Chimpko?  Your idea of a 'typical' market machine is
:> WAY BELOW WHAT EMACHINES BUILDS.
:>
:
:I was speaking about a specific system before you lost your mind here.
:

No, you were offering recommendations that are hopelessly outdated.

:
:>
:> :
:> :You are aware that Dell makes several different teirs of computers,
:> :right? One right down there with E-Machines with a Dell label on it.
:> :Small case and all.
:> :
:>
:> You are aware there are lots of folks who build machines in that size
:> case with that form factor of motherboard, right?
:>
:
:Yep and all crap, IMO.
:

We'll be sure to give your opinion all the weight your displayed
'expertise' as show here merits.

:
:>
:> :
:> :I bet if I open the small cases, E-Machines and Dell, side by side,
:> :and photographed the insides you could not tell the difference.
:> :
:>
:> Hell, I bet *YOU* couldn't, since your description of the inside of an
:> eMachines box is YEARS out of date.
:>
:
:How many years McClod? PCIe is new.
:

Jesus, El Chimpko, where have you BEEN?  PCIe was invented clear back
in 2002.  That's not 'new'.  That's several (computer) generations
back.

:
:>
:> :
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :... anyway, I told him to
:> :> :stick with closest thing to a standard based upon what sells best in
:> :> :the market without cutting corners. That means get a mobo with an AGP
:> :> :slot and a case with a big PS.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> What do you need a "big PS" for if you're limited to a single low-end
:> :> graphics card?
:> :>
:> :
:> :Who said anything about a low-end graghic card?
:> :
:>
:> You did when you said "AGP slot".
:>
:
:There was no AGP slot on this system, though it had PCI slots. The
:video was onboard. Geez...
:

Eric:  "That means get a mobo with an AGP slot and a case with a big
PS."

Eric:  "There was no AGP slot..."

Eric, AGP has been around for over a decade.  What obsolete piece of
crap were you foisting off on this guy?

:
:>
:> :
:> :Here go get a dual P4 system ...
:> :
:>
:> Why would I want to build an obsolete system?
:>
:
:Because you KNOW that it would work with all your software, etc. Has
:PCIe replaced PCI 100% WRT to all OSs (Windows, Linix, etc.) Is PCIe
:COMPLETELY transparent to the OS?
:

Every OS I know of has had PCIe drivers in it for years, since you
pretty much can't run decent video without them.

:
:>
:> :
:> :with a 128 MB graphics card with its own
:> :fan,
:> :
:>
:> Why would I want an obsolete graphics card?  You can buy the graphics
:> card you're talking about for like $10 these days.
:>
:
:Good, I think I'll upgrade.
:

You should.  I'm looking at this moment at a TWENTY-FIVE DOLLAR
motherboard, Eric.  It supports PCIe and SATA.  You figure it out...

:
:>
:> :
:> :a couple of hard drives, a DVD-R/W and CD-R/W and see if a small
:> :PS can run your system. The system I described above is what he was
:> :looking for.
:> :
:>
:> That will run quite handily with a 300W-350W power supply.  That
:> wasn't even considered "big" 5 years ago.  300W was an *average* power
:> supply 5 years ago.  Manufacturers cutting corners would go down to
:> 250W.
:>
:
:Does PCIe use more or less power?
:

Slots don't use power, Eric.  What you stick in them uses power.  PCIe
will support higher power devices than PCI will.

:
:>
:> :
:> :>
:> :> Eric, once you go to a non-PCIe motherboard you've already cut all the
:> :> corners there are to cut.
:> :>
:> :
:> :PCIe? Look it up on wiki. Even wiki stated that it was confusing! Why
:> :did PCIe remind me of bubble memory?
:> :
:>
:> Gee, WIKI is confused.  Well, that's right out then!  PCI Express is a
:> dead technology because WIKI is confused.
:>
:
:No one said "dead" but you. We'll have to see if PCIe really does take
:over 100%. It looks like serial is the wave of the future over
:parallel due to timing skew.
:

Hint:  PCIe is a serial interconnect technology.

:
:>
:> :
:> :It will be interesting to see if it replaces PCI outright.
:> :
:>
:> It essentially already has.  Modern motherboard may still have a PCI
:> slot or three, but look at how they're positioned.  You're not going
:> to put anything in them if you put modern videocards in the system
:> because the cooling for those will block the PCI slots.
:>
:> What peripheral are you going to put in that requires a PCI slot,
:> Eric?
:>
:
:One of Henry's SCSI controllers of course!
:

Probably ISA or EISA.

:
:Fred, you are right about one thing. It will be fun and worth it to
:learn about PCIe and how and if it replaces parallel compeletly and
:see if Firewire can compete. Speaking of which, since Apple has gone
:to Pentium chips made by Intel (dropping PowerPC) and Intel created
:PCIe, will Apple computers use PCIe or Firewire for their internal
:"bus"? The reason I ask is that Mil-STD 1394 (Firewire) is expected to
:replace Mil-STD 1553 for space applications. If Apple doesn't support
:their own technology in a manner to compete with Intel's PCIe by using
:PCIe, why should the space industry rely,use and trust a Mil-STD
:version of Firewire over a Mil-STD version of PCIe? Both being
:potential replacements for Mil-STD 1553, which everyone agrees is just
:too slow these days. I find it ironic that PCIe being a serial
:interface is more like 1553, which was the space standard for years,
:that traditional parallel computer busses. Clearly, USB and Firewaire
:have made a huge influence on the advent of PCIe.
:

Hint:  PCIe and 1394 don't compete in the same application space.

Hint:  IBM (the PowerPC people) were involved in the development of
PCIe, as were a number of other folks.  Intel didn't 'create' it.

Hint:  Clearly, USB and Firewaire [sic] had no influence at all on the
advent of PCIe.

Hint:  A single PCIe 'lane' transfers data an order of magnitude
faster than 1394 or USB.

Hint:  The typical 16-lane PCIe slot used for graphics cards doubles
the throughput of an 8x AGP slot.

Hint:  On board graphics generally suck.

Hint:  $25 motherboards support PCIe.  That makes it pretty ubiquitous
in the marketplace, even if you're building 'toy' systems.


author: Fevric J Glandules

subject: Re: FWD: Henry in Absentia

text:
Eric & Fred,

I'd just like to congratulate you guys on making some posts that are
*so* fricking big that my newsreader can't display them.


subject: Re: FWD: Henry in Absentia

text:
On Aug 30, 8:27 am, Fred J. McCall <[email]> wrote:

No, actually I'm taunting you and daring you to do it again. You can't
and every reply
makes you look more and more foolish.

Yes and and I'm sure you view yourself as some sort of wise elder in
the group, rather than the self-rightous blowhard that you are.

It is a taunt you fool...

You merely threaten to killfile me. You reallycan't do it.

That is Englisch to you...

Let's see shall we?

You were right about "wiggle", but missed that it was you and right
here, in thread.

The CPU board that fit into a Slot A slot is not a motherboard.
Daughterboard, maybe.

No, confusion has the best of you again.

We get along just fine. It is you that is divorced. Your wife left you
because you no doubt analyzed things to death and lost your sense of
humor eons ago. That is if you ever had one. And I can picture you at
12, all serious with zero imagination. Poor Freddy...

Very true, since there have been several Pentiums. II, III, IV. Have
you been under a rock?

You never stated that. Further, there have been processors that were
comtemporaries that were different as well.

No, that is just how you want me to be. Why is that? Do you actually
enjoy other people in trouble? It seems so...

Again, that is how you WANT me to be. It is that want that is in
question, Freddy.

II is not with III nor is IV with II or III. That is pinout -wise.
Now, code-wise is different. Supposedly all Pentiums are downward
compatible, code-wise.

Again, you act as if there was never any overlap. Add in AMD and you
are totally baffled it would seem.

Freddy, repeats himself. Real smart guy!

Yep, since you're not capable of making mistakes, then you couldn't
have done so. Right, HAL?

Yes, you were threatened and then you pulled me out of your killfile.
Right...

..by a Queen, at that. Touche', Freddy!  :))))

For me it is. I like it better than C++ and so does a lot of other
people that haven't jumped onto the Object-Oriented bandwagon.

Not at all. C is the new assembly language, old sock...

Get a wavier and/or get them used. It can be done.

That's not what you tell all the other guys.

Sure I do...

<rolling eyes>

Is that what you do?

Which is fine. And then stop. It is the lack of stopping that is the
problem.

Sure, you don't care. Let the next generation deal with it.

"Cartridge" is another name for daughtercard? Who knew?

It's alive!!

Yes, you are just like the war.

No one ever answers for you McClod. I suspect that your importance is
less than you think it is.

I said, you go first. Stated who you work for.

You first. Why is that so difficult?

It seems that you follow is as if it were your own creed. Clearly the
above was meant to be humorous. I put it in the same place as:

Softball is serious, life is a game.
Be careful how you treat your children, they pick your retirement
home.
It ain't over until it's over.
Murphy's Law
etc., etc..., etc......................

That did happen once to me. I then took over their operation with my
next job.

For you to work for NASA would be a step up, Freddy.

I was speaking about someone enquiring about your background, military
fool.

You do? Who?

You would probably last less than 6 months at GSFC, NASA.

No.

Yes, you're pretty clueless about when IT things come to fruation.

I think you are quoting a previous employer. Nice try, though...

Besides, the above can be just about anyone in the engineering
services industry. Since starting as a NASA contractor I have worked
for 8 different companies. Some with name changes, others on the same
contract and a company switch.

I think you should join a union.

Do you know the difference between a general purpose register, an
index register and an accumulator? Do you know what a program counter
is? Do you know how to change it?

Are you going to claim that you know assembly language better than I
do, McClod?

Today all CPUs are RISC (Reduced Instrcution Set Computer) as compared
to the old days of CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer). See:
http://cse.stanford.edu/class/sophomore-college/projects-00/risc/risccisc/

RISC assembly languages are bland and you quickly want to write a set
of primitive instructions to get you to a language like say, Forth or
a version of tiny C, to actually do any real work. Not so back in the
days of CISC. The instructions were richer and you could write volumes
of code and get lots done without feeling the need to write
primatives. You could create short-cuts (i.e. routines or macros) to
assist with your work, but you still worked with the CISC (so named
with the advent of RISC) language to do much of your programming.
Today is easier to simply use C for bitwise manipulations than RISC
assembly and the latter tends to be restricted from general users
anyway.

Are you saying that CISC is still alive and well? Mil-STD 1750,
Freddy? Ha-ha... and you call me an old monk.

Okay Freddy, where isn't RISC? Where is CISC? We'll take it from there
and see if you know what you are talking about.

Were you born on a fort? Did you grow up in a DOD household? If not,
then you have no idea.

You make me laugh since I have already passed what my equivalent
military posistion both educationally and career-wise would be for my
age. Sorry Freddy, just because you chose the military and I did not
doesn't make you right and me wrong. I did what I did and you did what
you did. I don't claim you are wrong for your decision, why do you
claim that I am wrong with mine?

Perhaps you felt you HAD to join up? Anything less was not acceptable
within the guidelines of your family?

Not really. I did quite well with military computers as a kid. In
fact, I owe the Army a debt of gratitude for the oppurtunity to learn
the student computer at West Point. And I have thanked the Colonel in
charge at the time for that oppurtunity.

Then why did he ask me if I wanted to go? This was the mid 70s.

So are you calling my father a liar? Are you, McClod? Several of my
classmates with fathers that had the same rank as my father (Colonel)
went. Start were not needed. At least not back in the mid 70s.

<snicker>

What does "empowerment" mean, Freddy?

Do your products work? Does your paper accurately describe your
product?