text:
On Mar 26, 11:26 pm, Tom McDonald <[email]> wrote:

I do have some very specific ideas about the human brain and the way
that we think and act and why.  Some of that may be OT for this ng...
I dunno.... maybe will touch on some of it later if you wish.
Briefly, I do think that we humans have the ability to Imagine, Think,
Understand and Memorize (ITUM) in ways that are qualitatively
different than our close relatives... I THINK!  now, there is actually
no way with current technology to actually decipher that question.
So, to "define" understand is actually beyond my capability, and I
fully admit my weakness in that department.  What does it mean if I
say that I "understand" that the sunset is beautiful?

In the context of what I am trying to say in this thread, I think that
hss 200kya "understood" plant life, and probably concurrently some
other issues that are related only because of their conceptual value,
such as the connection between intercourse and pregnancy, clouds and
rain, individuality and death, cause and effect.....

Perhaps I should say that I think that our ancestors 200 kya
understood that a plant dropped a seed, that seed becomes a seedling,
and eventually a new plant.  Given that one of the qualities of our
species is to fiddle iwth things,, and experiment, I can imagine (for
i have no evidence and have claimed none) that early humans messed
with different ways to plant a seed, and in different soils, and with
or without water, sun.

Maybe.  Here is a link to leaf cutter ants, for example:
http://www.bristolzoo.org.uk/learning/animals/invertebrates/ant
and they can certainly be called farmers.
however, it depends on the "image" that we evoke within ourselves and
with our words on this ng.
for example, one image is
"Hollywood" where some poor farmer raises his fist in defiance to the
drought and curses
or
an image of a chimp, bored at a zoo scratching his/her fingernail in
the dirt.
or
some group of bored early-humans sitting around under a tree while the
kids sleep, discovering some concept
etc.
I personally am more baffled by the idea that homo erectus (+/-) tamed
FIRE, which seems extraordinary compared to the rather ordinary taming
of the seed and soil.
meanwhile, I don't actually understand what you mean by the carnivore
having a "relationship" with the soil.

yes.

My work, every single day, is with Montessori children.  One of the
concepts that we see in action... every day... is that children learn
"without effort."  It is as though the brain is absorbing knowledge
and the environment in a strange, mystical dance of sorts.  In other
words, children "think" without effort, and fail to thrive when NOT
given the opportunity to think.  Adults (according to Montessori)
learn and think in ways that are different than young children.

yes

that only became adaptive when environmental and/or population

no

I didn't think any such thing.  However, current evidence, current
scientific thinking about HN, is that they were heavy meat eaters.  We
have a very diverse diet.  For example, one of our "daily
requirements" (chuckle... to use an old USA term) is for a yellow
vegetable... often found underground.  A root vegetable perhaps, like
the yam.  Somebody had to figure out where and how to find that
underground vegetable.  They understood it.

I do have one bit of evidence.  The cave painters used yellow and red
ochre, which for all practical purposes is dirt.  problem is, that
pushes back this issue to 300kya...
"Ochre was one of the first pigments to be used by human beings.
Pieces of haematite, worn down as though they had been used as
crayons, have been found at 300,000 year old Homo heidelbergensis
sites in France..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_ochre
and includes HN sites...

and, we could add that we were apparently terrestrial since about 5
mya. We were bound to run up against a few plants every now and then!
<grin>
really, what I am talking about is a fundamental change in human brain
and behaviour that involved manipulation of plant life.
regards
calder


author: [redacted]

subject:
Re: Newswise: Researchers Find the Earliest Evidence of Domesticated
	Maize

text:
On Mar 27, 2:45 am, rmacfarl <[email]> wrote:

agreed.  I stand corrected.  "we" is not the best word.

yes, true too of the Native Americans.  There is an old saying in that
regard that there is always nearby an antidote to a poison.

I am still thinking on your point, which I read sorta' like this:  it
can't be a prerequisite skill because there are lots of groups of HG
people that did not move on to large scale agriculture?  So that the
exception refutes the rule?  or soemthing like that....

yes, that was some fascinating info.  I need to read some of those
studies that relate each trace element, each required bit of human
nutrition, to a specific source.

 Having a greater ability to locate and access

(nice word, btw.... meta-organization).  I think Goodall observed some
chimp movements that were related to various fruits becoming ripe.

I don't think that our (there's that word again!...oops!) population
had grown enough during those periods of warmth.  so, the requirement
for settlemnets, and governments, and kings and servants, and
agriculture on a large scale, did not arise.  Agriculture 12 kya was a
response, in my humble opinion, to the needs of a larger population.

We'll agree to disagree, then, because I have a different image of the
Neanderthal.  I am open to change that image, but don't see the
evidence.  HN apparently did not even use the spear, or the needle for
clothing.  They rode their prey like rodeo riders (according to their
broken bone patterns anyway).  All this with a bigger brain too!
<smile>  <it is about ORGANIZATION of the brain>  I envision the HN
people eating fruit and leaves and plant-life in a random,
opportunistic way, similar to ... <gasp>  the chimps.  (Really, I AM
open to change my image, and not think of HN as some sort of brute-
only creature. That is another thread.)

That was very big news here in the USA... we were all very worried
about our pals down under.  Several US states are quite prone to
devastating fires, but you guys... wow... the ferocity of those fires
was mind boggling.  In the news today is an article about the
Poisonous Toads & making em into fertilizer for the sugar cane.

sigh... I must admit that you are correct about one, but part of me
wants to scream out that it can't be true!  There is no reason to
believe that agriculture was an inevitable development in human
evolution.  But, now that it exists, .... doesn't that change other
parameters?  ie, we might one day live at peace on this planet?  we
might one day live on Mars?  etc.  I do think there have been similar
arguments about obligate bipeds... a very unlikely creature... but...
now that it ACTUALLY exists....
two, desirable to have ag?  yes and no.  I don't think it is a very
simple answer.  If we are going to discuss it further , i would think
of it in at least two divisions:  the family farm versus mega-agri-
business.
sustainable agriculture?  I think definitely yes.  But, again, there
are problems.  water, for example.  I am not an expert in this by any
means, but have several family members that are.  It appears from my
perspective that it also depends on "our" ability to deal with our
waste products, too, and to somehow make our consumption and disposal
a part of the natural cycle.  I am not trying to be uber cool about
this, just realistic about where humanity might be in, say, 300 years
from now.
regards
calder


author: rmacfarl

text:
On Mar 28, 11:11 am, "[email]"
<[email]> wrote:

That's not "understanding", that's a sense of the aesthetic.

Consciousness? Ability to recognise the self in a mirror? - Those
aren't unique to humans.

At risk of derailing this discussion altogether, may I point out that
there are more than enough unplanned pregnancies in the world to
demonstrate that understanding of this causality is far from innate...

Elephants and great apes seem to understand death, just as they
recognise themselves...

The problem you have with this whimsical speculation is the same as
Paul Crowley's. Yes, as I posted to Tom, tribal humans recognise
different plant & animal species. Yes, they understand the need to
protect core breeding areas of prey animals, and the principle of not
gathering all the roots or fruits of a plant, or all the eggs in a
nest. Yes, they maintain cultural strictures to protect such food
species. But actual settled agriculture based on domesticated plants
and animals leaves identifiable markers in the soil, in the
palynology, in the archaeology, in the morphology of the domesticates,
that you do not find in the pre-Holocene record...

Interesting, but what does it have to do with inevitability of
agriculture?

Have you considered that they were adapted to be heavy meat eaters
because of living in Ice Age Europe, much as Inuit are heavy meat
eaters in similar climatic conditions? That this doesn't preclude them
from the capability to redirect their enormous brains to activities
that they were no more evolved to do than ours are? (Like driving a
tractor, or surfing the Internet?)

Fine, but you need to propose some testable hypotheses based on when &
why you think this took place, including what the tests for it would
be. Otherwise it's just idle speculation. Nothing wrong with that per
se, but it is a criticism of the discipline that even the most highly
credentialled theorists will slip between speculating about
evolutionary drivers that may have happened at different times and for
different reasons with different outcomes, without ever clearly
defining where they fit in.

Bipedalism. Brain growth. Hunting. Tool-making. Clothing. Art.
Religion / spiritualism. Domestication of plants & animals. What
happened when, to what degree and in what order? We may never be able
to answer all of these, but I just wish people would remember that
before launching into pontifications on the origin of Homo sapiens...

Ross Macfarlane


text:
On Mar 27, 9:13 pm, rmacfarl <[email]> wrote:

true.  but the mirror recognition club is very small indeed.

<smile>

I agree.  But only to the extent that I am not certain that hss
understands death.  I don't.

I have read much of Pauls work in this regard, and, oh my!  it is a
very dubious honor, but I think I gave Jim McGuin the idea in the
first dang place.  However, instead of a "whimsical speculation" I
would rather call it an educated guess, or just an ordinary
speculation.

Yes, as I posted to Tom, tribal humans recognise

yet.

Tom's post indicated that because we had to think about some issue
(any random issue, not just whether or not a seed would sprout), then
it is using up brain cells and expending energy uselessly.  I dare
say, we adults do that all the time... however... children do not,
when given the opportunity.

yes, I have considered the HN environment.  What I am proposing, as an
educated guess, is that we evolved away from the HN model (if I can
say it that way) by a difference in dietary habits, and that those
dietary habits involved an expansion in our consumption of plant life.
more gathering.... more knowledge of plants...

part of my speculation, originally, is that humans today have a
"relationship with the soil."  We know how to plant a seed and nuture
it until it gives us food.  We know how to clear land and prepare the
soil to receive a seed. and etc.  This is agriculture, and I agree
that it really only exists, only has evidence, in the Holocene.
However, even Craig Stanford in Upright says that "behaviorial change
precedes anatomical change...." (page 92).  So, our behavior as
"farmers" must have been in a pre-agriculture state sometime prior to
12kya.  Why not all the way back to the beginning of our species about
195 kya?  Here is a possible test:
The fossil of an 195,000 year old hss has vitamins and minerals in it
that are not present in say, homo erectus fossils.  I can't say
exactly what those vitamins and minerals would be from the vantage
point of my desk at this computer.  And no one has yet devised such a
test, similar to the C3-C4 type testing.  However, I beleive that in
my lifetime such a test will be available.
another such test:
we luckily are able to find a series of coprolytes and are able to
show a progression of new foods through time.  ie, 300kya, only meat
and fruits.  275 kya, addition of leafy greens, 250 kya, addition of,
say, root vegetables like yams, 200 kya, some of the wild rices or
grasses, 150 kya, fishes and seafoods, 100 kya, Raisin Bran!
<chuckle>  just kidding there, but you get the point.
I don't think we will find evidence of farming per se, or of something
the equivalent of a pottery vessel full of domesticated corn, but that
would prove my point too.

agreed.  however, this IS just idle speculation at this point anyway!

regards
calder


text:
On Mar 28, 11:55 am, "[email]"
<[email]> wrote:
...

No, not that. What I mean is this. In the past 30 years or so as we've
started to realise the impact we're having on the planet, there's been
a lot of talk about "sustainability" - living in such a way that we
don't over-exploit the world's resources and damage our own and every
other organism's survival prospects. Sustainable agriculture is
supposed to be about growing food in such a way that soil nutrients
are continually replenished, water and forest resources are not over-
exploited, salinity is avoided or even remediated, ... etc. But the
more we learn about self-sustaining systems aka Gaia (e.g, air, water,
nitrogen, clouds, temperature, ecosystems both local and planetary),
the more complex the picture becomes.

 Given that for 90% of human prehistory our ancestors lived solely as
hunter-gatherers, I question whether we can ever truly recreate a
sustainable way of life any other way. Or if we do, whether the
carrying capacity of human population will be nearer pre-agricultural
levels (one estimate I've seen was 300 million), or the the 9 billion
we are now on track to exceed in century.

Yes. Also killer whales learning where and how to access different
food sources at different times - like the youtube of them hunting
seal pups that Lee posted yesterday. Seems to be cultural differences
between different pods.

In my humble opinion, you have that, to coin a popular American
phrase, ass-backward. Population grew because they were able to access
larger resources in the form of cultivated foods, particularly cereal
grains, surpluses of which could be stored from good years and
accessed to reduce the effects of famine in poorer times.

They did use spears, perhaps not with hafted stone points like Clovis
hunters.They had more sophisticated toolkits than some anatomically
modern human hunter-gatherers known from historical times - Tasmanian
aborigines, for example. Aborigines can read, use computers, drive
cars and herd cattle. The fact that neanderthals didn't does not mean
they couldn't.

No, you have that interpretation all wrong. Researchers found that
many neanderthal skeletons show evidence of broken bone patterns, for
which the best modern analogy was rodeo riders. That doesn't mean they
were riding their prey - it's interpreted to mean they were getting
more up close and personal with their large prey species than less
robust anatomical moderns would normally dare to, getting injured, and
surviving. Closer to the pointy end, as it were.

The depiction of neanderthals as grunting brutes is an outdated
stereotype arising from misinterpretation of neanderthal fossils going
back to the 19th century. Google "old man of la ferrassie" - he was
affected by diseases of aging such as arthritis, but this was
overlooked by someone who ought to have known better, which led to
neanderthals being described as stooping, shuffling brutes - which was
pretty much what the researchers wanted to find. As is too often the
case with "objective" human research.

You'd better change your image of HN, calder, otherwise I'll set ANNE
V. GILBERT on you... :-)

...

yes

no

[resisting the urge to scream answer from hilltops...] no

Now you're introducing human social yardsticks into a discussion about
biological sustainability. Really a different argument altogether I
submit.

See above...

Ross Macfarlane


text:
[email] wrote:

Yes, but a lot wider than just Homo sapiens, or even genus Homo.

Miss? Someone's channelling Kierkegaard in class, and it makes my head
hurt...

No offense was intended, and so far you are well short of the Crowley
& McGinn class... :-)

Oh, come on the world is a big place to go running the absence of
evidence / evidence of absence argument. We haven't found human femurs
in the Carboniferous yet either, the views of other SAP, errh,
"participants" notwithstanding...

Well I'm an adult, and I don't know about you or Tom, but I have a
hard time rationalising the time I spend on SAP in any way that wasn't
"using up brain cells and expending energy uselessly." :-)

We didn't evolve away from the HN model, they evolved a separate and
distinct lifestyle in a different environment for half a million
years, from our common ancestor. Rather than our ancestors expanding
their consumption of plant life, I'd say it was much more likely that
their reliance switched more heavily to meat. Because of the cold
environment, cf. modern Inuit.

*That* is a testable hypothesis - there are number of ways to analyse
diet in the fossil record - isotopic, archaeological, from coprolites,
tooth wear, etc. As is pretty much what you propose below.

...

See, now, all that sensible, logical thinking, and look where it gets
you. You've just had your provisional membership of the Netloon Guild
torn up on the spot. :-)

Yup.

Excuse me. It's lunchtime...

Ross Macfarlane


text:
On Mar 27, 10:02 pm, rmacfarl <[email]> wrote:

That is the correct way to say that, about the rodeo riders.  And I
meant to correct myself about the spears.  A typo of sorts.  I should
have said that the HN's didn't seem to possess the atl-atl or
apparently didn't use the throwing spear either.  the thrusting one,
yes.  maybe throwing.

By the way, just for comparison, the bow and arrow were not invented/
discovered in my neck of the woods (present day North Carolina in the
USA) until 4 kya, or about 2000 BC.  Pottery evidence is not much
older either.  So, the lack of an atl-atl 40 kya in remote Europe is
not completely insane.

Anne has not posted here on sap in quite some time?  We could use a
good HN thread.  Haven't had one in a while.  And, yes, I too have to
justify my time spent reading sap.

Yeah, probably not Mars.  But, there is one moon of Jupiter that has
possiblities.  And, The US already has plans for a space station on
the moon.  Launching from there to other places in the solar system
takes less energy so is desirable.  .... I do think that one day
warfare will be largely reduced or eliminated on this planet.  We just
don't have the resources to continue fighting like idiots.  Sorry...
all OT for sap... enough o' that.
regards
calder


text:
On Mar 27, 10:35 pm, rmacfarl <[email]> wrote:

Hey!  Thanks!  <grin>  I make no claims, and am certainly NOT "the
greatest evolutionary theorist in the world" or whatever.  I am a busy
fellow.  Full time job... plus am writing a screenplay, in two plays
(Amistad and MLK), taking sculpture & drawing classes, have a gorgeous
wife, and manage to read sap and evolution books.  Not much time left
to sleep.  I only dream about being in the field with a brush on a
fossil.

I use the Science News date of 600 kya for the HN/hss split.  Of
course we can't use an "HN model", but that is frequently seen in the
schools in America.  The caveman image.  However, I do wonder why HN
didn't pick up some of the things that might be just cultural for hss
(or CroMagnon if you wish), such as sewing.  It almost indicates to me
that there was no social interaction between the two species.
yep, i gotta' go eat, too.  Just dragged in the kill....
--c


text:
On Mar 25, 1:10 pm, "[email]"
<[email]> wrote:

I take a different view.

For more than 90% of modern human prehistory, and over 99% of all
human history, we were hunter-gatherers who did not rely on
agriculture, let alone industrial or post-industrial economics.
Considering what human overpopulation and over-exploitation of the
world's resources - next time someone talks to you about sustainable
agriculture, ask yourself if there is such a thing...

Ross Macfarlane


text:
On Mar 26, 4:53 am, rmacfarl <[email]> wrote:

Okay.  Different view is good....
Perhaps the part I am thinking about concerns the "gathering" part of
the HG equation.
My "world view" of evolution is probably not too different than your
own, at least from what I have seen of your posts.
The part I am thinking about with the plants & soil:  we have not
changed physically since 200 kya is an axiomatic principle, yes?  We
have definitely changed culturally, and continue to make that change
very rapidly at the current day.
I agree with the currently-understood knowledge that there was an
"explosion" into full blown agriculture in several parts of the world
at about 5 to 10 kya.

So, the part in question is from 200 kya until about 10kya.  What
"relationship" with the soil did humans have at that time, and what
advantage would that play in our development?
I have been a slacker and have not ever explained what I mean by
"relationship."  Well, I can't fully explain that, for, the concept is
new for me too!  <grin>  By using this word, I mean that humans
"understood" that plants grew from the soil & needed a certain bit of
soil or soil-condition in order to thrive, and that certain plants
needed more or less sun and water and etc.  This is like a
prerequisite to what would in 10 kya become organized agriculture.

I do not think that the Neanderthals possessed this knowledge, and
that may be one of the advantages that we had over that species.

I am not ready or able to predict whether or not such an ability was
cultural or somehow "innate."  Probably cultural, but maybe messing
around with plant life gave us just that little edge of nutrition that
precipitated our evolution into a new species.
regards
--calder


text:
On Mar 27, 2:26 pm, Tom McDonald <[email]> wrote:

"We" is problematic. Some of "Us" down to the present day continue to
live as hunter-gatherers (which is not to say that they have remained
in cultural stasis for 200 KY). There is clear evidence of cultural
change (which I choose not to call "progress"), in e.g. Pleistocene
European tool and art cultures. But the development of settled
agriculture, followed in many places by the rise of cities and what we
call civilisation, is a Holocene, basically a strictly post-12 KYA,
phenomenon.

Actually, I agree with Calder here, without agreeing that what he
describes is a "prerequisite to ... organized agriculture." Tribal
hunter-gatherers typically have highly developed, in fact
encyclopaedic, knowledge of the flora and fauna around them. More than
1 study has found a very high level of agreement between their
knowledge and modern Linnean taxonomy.

There's a strong argument to be made, I think, that this ability to
identify plants by their medicinal and/or food values, and where and
how they grow, was a compelling factor driving human brain growth. Men
hunting red meat is often cited (mostly by men) because of the extra
caloric input, but studies of hunter-gatherers consistently show that
food gathered by women contributes a greater proportion of the tribes'
caloric intake. Having a greater ability to locate and access
different food resources would have afforded the gatherers a selective
advantage, countervailing the disadvantage of a larger, more energy-
intensive brain.

I'd draw an analogy with work done with great apes - for example,
Birute Galdikas suggests that orang utans' large brains help them to
learn and recall the location and time of fruiting of different food
trees in a large rainforest territory. Of course, it also allows them
to interact in a complex social "meta-organisation" (for want of a
better word), despite being nominally solitary animals.

Clearly they did have the pre-adaption, if you accept the assumption
that they belonged to Homo sapiens sensu stricto.However, as you
imply, that doesn't make for teleological inevitability* that
intensification of food production would apply. If I'm not mistaken,
there have been periods in the past 200 KY that were as warm or nearly
so as the early Holocene, but agriculture did not initiate in those
periods.

(*Gould & Vrba invented the word "exaption" for just this reason - see
http://tinyurl.com/exaption.)

I'm with you here. There is no reason to think that had Neanderthals
survived to the Holocene, they would not be able to learn to farm just
as well as modern HS. MREH proponents would tell you that they did, &
they have.

There is plenty of evidence not only that pre-agricultural human
societies could and did modify their local environments, but that they
did so consciously. The phenomenon of Australian aborigines' "fire-
stick farming" is a well-known example - annual low-level burning off
of forest undergrowth, which amongst other things made it easier to
see game. This favoured eucalyptus and other species over less fire-
adapted vegetation. To some extent it would also have affected the
faunal balance, as of course would aborigines' hunting.

(The breakdown of the fire-stick farming cycle has contributed to the
decline of some of our native wildlife, and arguably contributed to
the loss of over 200 lives in the horrific fires of Black Saturday, 7
February, just a few weeks ago in my home state of Victoria.)

Does this equate to agriculture being inevitable, desirable or
sustainable? Definitely no to the first of those propositions, and on
the next 2 make your own judgement - but I'd argue no to the third,
and in many ways to the second as well...

Ross Macfarlane


author: mclark

text:
On Mar 27, 7:17 am, Paul Crowley <[email]> wrote:
[runup]

"Your 'thinking' here is so screwed up,
I don't know where to start."
--Pauly  03/22/2209

Nice .sig.  Say, were you ever going
to get around to discussing "habitat
preferences"?  Just wondering...

[the rest of it]

-----------------------------------------------
"Brains are bullshit.  Both then and now."
Pauly --06/10/1997


text:
On Mar 24, 5:17 pm, rmacfarl <[email]> wrote:

Nice article.

I would offer this speculation then, based on this piece:
That domestication took a number of years to accomplish, perhaps even
extending back to entrance of the Clovis people to the New World about
14 kya.
Therefore, the clovis people brought the technology with them to the
new world, and the skills for domestication precede the migration.
And that domestication was not independantly discovered in the new
world.

However, I just speculate, but appreciate the actual evidence
presented in this article.

I have stated before in this ng that I think hss had a "relationship
with the soil" at the very beginning of our species some 200 kya.  I
hope that this is not perceived as a McGinnian Spiral. Rather, it is
an educated guess that one day we will have some evidence that we have
always been farmers of some sort.  Today, 2009, agriculture is the
number one occupation of most humans.
regards
calder


author: Tom McDonald

subject:
Re: Newswise: Researchers Find the Earliest Evidence of Domesticated
  Maize

text:
[email] wrote:

Please explain what you mean by 'understood'.

Then all herbivores have a 'relationship' with the soil and
'understand' these things; just as all carnivores (that survive
to reproduce, anyway) have such a relationship with and
understanding of the soil, at second hand, as it were.

But you seem to be saying that for the last 200 ky, H.s.
populations have had a conscious awareness, an analytical,
symbolic, representational awareness of the elements various
plants require in order to grow.

But this seems fairly labor intensive, when other animals do it
in other, less energy-intensive ways thought being harder than
instinct or well-adapted senses.

Then you think that humans had a expensive pre-adaptation for 190
ky that only became adaptive when environmental and/or population
pressures forced an intensification of food production?

Why do you think Neandertals couldn't figure out where to find lunch?

What evidence do you have that H.s. 'mess[ed] around with plant
life' in a way useful to future domestication before the run-up
to domestication? Paul Crowley has some ideas on this line, but
no evidence.

You got any?


author: Paul Crowley

text:
rmacfarl wrote:

Numerous other species have similar abilities.
Indeed, there is no evidence that humans have
anything special, or even remarkable, in this
regard.

The use of 'pre-adaption' is hopelessly
inappropriate for the wide range of skills,
and the degree of conscious thinking involved.
We know (at least roughly) what 'pre-adaption'
can mean in other species.  We can describe
the physical features, or the specific
behaviours and see (at least to some extent)
how they could be hard-wired as instincts.
There is nothing remotely like that in human
'agricultural behaviour'.

Truly absurd.  You might as well call space-
travel, or ballet, or brain-surgery, 'exaptions'.
(Thinking about it, you probably do.)

Sure -- they'd have benefited from magic
Alien-space-dust just as much as H. sap did.

Your 'thinking' here is so screwed up,
I don't know where to start.  Have you
stopped believing in cause-and-effect?
Did you ever?  If you still do, what the
heck was the CAUSE?

The evidence here is massive and overwhelming.
When you find many separate populations of a
species (or any taxon) spread over several
continents, each showing highly distinctive
(and even unique) abilities, it is parsimonious
to assume that the ancestral population also
had those abilities.

Not to adopt this assumption is quite
irrational -- no matter how much this
irrationality is sanctioned by some
ancient quasi-Biblical tradition.

Paul.


author: pete

subject:
Re: Newswise: Researchers Find the Earliest Evidence of Domesticated
		Maize

text:
[email] wrote:

I can't believe this is still a theory.

How can Clovis people come from someplace
where no Clovis points have ever been found?

The geatest variety of old Clovis types
is from around the Gulf Of Mexico.
That's the best indicator of the point of origin of the culture.


author: brian a m stuckless

subject: OUTside of POiNTs"; Fischy (2006).

text:
Tao wrote: >> "FrediFizzx" <[email]> wrote in message
 -=-

$$      Constant AMBiENT particle COUNT; Constant VELOCiTY c/n.
$$  AMBiENT media (including Einstein's "light medium") REGULATEs
$$  the light VELOCiTY v to be CONSTANT @ CONSTANT particle COUNT.
$$
$$ VELOCiTY is a VECTOR over duration; SPEED, the PATH over duration.
        o o                         o  o
             X                   o        Q      vector
               o                o           o  projection
                A - - - VELOCiTY vector - -> B - - - - -> C
                 o            o               o
                   P        o                   Y
                      o  o                         o
                    ANY path.
$$     Any VELOCiTY vector can ONLY be *MEASURED* ..in retrospect.
$$ [Vector VELOCiTY (A->B)/t is iNDEPENDANT of path SPEED (A~B) / t].
$$ NOTE: Any other *iMAGiNARY* velocity, BETWEEN any OTHER TWO points
$$ (each located on the SAME path) will indicate a DiFFERENT velocity
$$ vector, albeit (even though) THAT SAME *path* clearly doN'T CHANGE.
$$ [i.e. See that VELOCiTY X->Y & P->Q are vectors, on the SAME PATH].
$$
$$ Momentum UNcertainty varies directly with STRAiGHTNESS of the PATH.
$$
$$ Physically speaking,         ```Brian A M Stuckless, Ph.T (Tivity).
[p.s. DECLARiNG "no PRiOR geometry" GR *cut off* it's own WORLD-line].

Re: "Physical EMPTiNESS ..iN between POiNTs"; Fischy (2005).
Re: "The PHYSiCs of EMPTiNESS ..OUTside of POiNTs"; Fischy (2006).
Re: Is the quantum field an aether?   Re: Vectors caN'T be *MEASURED*.


subject: Re: OUTside of POiNTs"; Fischy (2006).

text:
$$ MOMENTUM UNcertainty varies iNVERSELY with the PATH STRAiGHTNESS.
Tao wrote: >> "FrediFizzx" <[email]> wrote in message
 -=-

$$      Constant AMBiENT particle COUNT; Constant VELOCiTY c/n:
$$   AMBiENT media (including Einstein's "light medium") REGULATEs
$$   the light VELOCiTY v to be CONSTANT @ CONSTANT particle COUNT.
$$
$$ VELOCiTY is a VECTOR over DURATiON; SPEED, the PATH over DURATiON":

        o o                         o  o
             X                   o        Q      vector
               o                o           o  projection
                A - - - VELOCiTY vector - -> B - - - - -> C
                 o            o               o
                   P        o                   Y
                      o  o                          o  o
                    ANY path.

$$    Any VELOCiTY vector can ONLY be "MEASURED" ..in RETROSPECT.
$$ [Vector VELOCiTY, (A->B)/t, is iNDEPENDANT of path SPEED, (A~B)/t].
$$ NOTE: Any other *iMAGiNARY* velocity, BETWEEN any OTHER TWO points
$$ (each located on the SAME path) will indicate a DiFFERENT velocity
$$ vector, albeit (even though) THAT SAME *path* clearly doN'T CHANGE.
$$ [i.e. Note, VELOCiTiEs X->Y and P->Q are vectors on the SAME PATH].
$$
$$ Momentum UNcertainty varies iNVERSELY with the PATH's STRAiGHTNESS.
$$
$$ Physically speaking,         ```Brian A M Stuckless, Ph.T (Tivity).
$$
[p.s. DECLARiNG "No PRiOR geometry" GR *cut off* it's own WORLD-line].

Re: Any SPACE-time where STUFF is CLEARLY isN'T EMPTY.!!
Re: "Physical EMPTiNESS ..iN between POiNTs"; Fischy (2005).
Re: "The PHYSiCs of EMPTiNESS ..OUTside of POiNTs"; Fischy (2006).
Re: Is the quantum field an aether?   Re: Vectors caN'T be *MEASURED*.


author: clayton ashley

subject: cavalry units

text:
Can anyone tell me what the current U.S. ARMY cav units are?
Thanks
Clayton


author: DeathBunny

subject: Re: cavalry units

text:
http://www.knox.army.mil/center/dtdd/ArmorMag/nd00indx.htm

Look under "10 Division Armor/Cavalry Geographical Locations" for "as of
Last November-ish"...


author: Mtkkburk

subject: Re: cavalry units

text:
OK here goes, as of last winter (Always subject to change):

1st AD: 1-1 CAV Buedingen GE

1st ID: 1-4 CAV Schweinfurt GE

2nd ID: 4-7 CAV Camp Garry Owen Korea

3rd ID: 3-7 CAV Ft. Stewart GA

4th ID: 1-10 CAV, Fort Hood

10th Mtn.: 3-17 CAV Ft Drum

25th ID: 3-4 CAV Schofield Barracks HI

82 ABN: 1-17 CAV Ft. Bragg

1st CD: 1-12 CAV, 2-12 CAV, 1-8 CAV, 2-8 CAV, 3-8 CAV, 1-7 CAV, Ft Hood

2nd ACR: 1/2 ACR, 2/2 ACR, 3/2 ACR Ft Polk

3rd ACR: 1/3 ACR, 2/3 ACR, 3/3 ACR Ft Carson

11th ACR: 1/11 ACR Ft Irwin

1st Armor Tng Bde: 5-15 CAV Ft Knox

16th CAV: 1-16 CAV, 2-16 CAV, 2-16 CAV Ft. Knox

Of course there are lots of CAV Squadrons in the National Guard also.

Hope that helps

Mike Burk


author: Jim

subject: Re: cavalry units

text:
What ever happened to the 2-17

        Jim
        long ago C/2-17 soldier


author: Mike Adams

subject: Re: cavalry units

text:
http://www.wainwright.army.mil/1bde/Unit%20Pages/E317/index.htm

Echo Troop, 3rd Squadron, 17th Cavalry

Echo Troop is the only Cavalry Troop in U.S. Army Alaska, and the only
separate Cavalry Troop in the Army!

Mike
Alaska


subject: Re: cavalry units

text:
Mtkkburk wrote:

1/18th CAV, 40th ID (M) HQ'd in Ontario CA with HHT and C Troop there,
A Troop in Pomona, B Troop somefucking place down San Diego way,
and  D, E, and F Troops @ Lost Al, with all of the grounded Cobras....

redc1c4,
they'll be in Yakima 'bout 2 weeks or so from now.....(but not me!)


subject: Re: cavalry units

text:
How many guys actually get to ride the dirt bikes?
Thanks
Clayton


author: Glenn Dowdy

subject: Re: cavalry units

text:
"redc1c4" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

My god, Red, you're missing Yak in the summer? I spent every summer in my
four years at Ft Lewis downrange at Yak. Of course, being the smart Engineer
type, we were only down there for construction; we spent our evenings back
in the barracks/BOQs in the cantonment area. At the All-Ranks Club, drinking
Bert's finest.

Glenn D.


subject: Re: cavalry units

text:
Not sure, likely only the persons designated as Scouts.. I much prefer
four wheelers (small four wheeled vehicles, sort of like a motorcycle
with four wheels).

More stable, and you can carry more and go most any place a motorcycle
can go and carry alot more and do more.

Mike

clayton ashley wrote:


subject: Re: cavalry units

text:
Glenn Dowdy wrote:
(snipage occurs)

hey, i may LOOK dumb but it's just a disguise....... i can read a map
and a weather report. %-)

i'll be @ Club Bob, "The antidote to reenlistment" (TM) for Golden
Shaft, i mean "Spear" starting on or about 20 July..... they say i'll be
driving VIP's around, but wiser heads will no doubt prevail and keep me
far from them........

redc1c4,
"I am a chauffeur of one"


subject: Re: cavalry units

text:
Of course, being the smart Engineer
drinking

Ah yes. Its strange how I have managed to adjust to life without the
wonderful ambiance of the Desert Inn.


author: Wilbert Kruithof

subject: Evolution and mutation, what relations are between them?

text:
Hello,

We encountered a few problems while discussing Open Source. I hope you
know the answer on following questions:

Karel Jansens wrote in message <[email]>...

Mutations are the singular most important part of evolution. Without it
there would be no change from the most basic life forms that first
existed
on this planet.
Without mutations there would be no diversity of life at all. Breeding
is
really just the mechanism with which mutations get tested. In the vast
majority of cases the mutations fail miserably, but very occasionally
the
extra finger or fin is a success and the species finds itself better at
escaping its predator or finding its food.
Future breeding then refines the mutation through to its new state.

Is this true?? Are mutation singular most important part of evolution?

And, what about DNA sequences, which are changing DNA sequences? Some
kind of DNA-based "mutation generator"?

With kind regards,

Wilbert


author: Ed van der Meulen

subject: Re: Evolution and mutation, what relations are between them?

text:
"Wilbert Kruithof" <[email]> schreef in bericht
news:9aku32$ogi$[email]...

Why not, but also not random. All sticks and pulls, fits and doesn't fit,
randomness is a poor approximation, I fear.

Yes, but without energy from our god represented by the sun, life
couldn't start.

Is the the first step on a staircase the single most important step?

Contingent cases, a way to escape from high energy levels. First to survive
on that low scale the moment of now. Secondly to invest in the problems
nexts. So sometimes proteins cut a DNA string, throwing away or inserting
it elsewhere, maybe turned. Connecting loose ends with crossing and odd
strings. Code a model and all you find you may meet as your "mutation
generator". It's a compound of regularities and irregularities and an
imprint.of former states in RNA/DNA, pushing randomness further away..

Are we connected?

Bye,
Ed van der Meulen


text:
"Wilbert Kruithof" <[email]> schreef in bericht
news:9aku32$ogi$[email]...

Why not, but also not random. All sticks and pulls, fits and doesn't fit,
only randomness is a poor approximation, I fear.

Yes, but without energy from our god represented by the sun, life
couldn't start.

Is the the first step on a staircase the single most important step?

Contingent cases, a way to escape from high energy levels. First to survive
on that low scale the moment of now. Secondly to invest in the problems
nexts. So sometimes proteins cut a DNA string, throwing away or inserting
a part elsewhere, maybe turned. Connecting loose ends with crossing and odd
strings with switching on and out. Code a model and all you find you may
meet as your "mutation generator". It's a compound of regularities and
irregularities and an imprint.of former states in RNA/DNA, pushing
randomness further away..

Are we connected?

Bye,
Ed van der Meulen


text:
Ed van der Meulen wrote:

Absolutely; hereby I would ask you to join our discussion in
comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Nothing about advantages of OS's etc, just evolution, or "Does OSS
evolve?".

Oh, excuses for my late reaction, thanks to my ISP ;-)

Chaio,

Wilbert (Hmm, you seem a Dutchman, I am too; why are we talking Englisch
actually :-)


author: Passwords

subject: ALIENS: FACT OR SCIENCE-FICTION?

text:
The theory of evolution is the generally accepted explanation for the
miraculous characteristics of life that we observe here on earth, and it
explains them very well.

There are, however, some characteristics of the human species that set
mankind far apart from all other life on earth, and seem to defy the
accepted principles of evolution. Could our current view of the speed or
timescale of human evolution be flawed? Or is there more to life on earth
than science has so far explained..?

1. Human intelligence is so much better than that required to survive on
earth, and so much higher than all other life on earth, that it is difficult
to see how this can be explained by evolution alone. How can we explain the
remarkable intelligence of mankind in evolutionary terms?

2. Furthermore, according to current thinking, the human mind has not
changed since the species emerged thousands of years ago. What use to Homo
sapiens in 200,000 BC would the human mind be, that has the potential to
facilitate such things as art, religion, and high-tech civilisation?

3. One of the constraints upon human intelligence is cranial capacity; that
is, the amount of room in the skull for the brain. The size of the human
skull at birth is constrained by the dimensions of the birth passage in the
female anatomy. Is it possible that one way in which evolution might
increase human intelligence could be to elongate the top of the skull into
dome-shape to provide additional capacity for brain tissue? (Just for fun.)

A QUICK REVIEW OF HUMAN EVOLUTION

The characteristics of life on earth has been very slowly influenced over
the millenia by evolutionary factors.

The basic principles of evolution are common-sensical. It is a process of
natural selection, or survival of the fittest. Certain properties of a
life-form are passed on from one generation to the next. These hereditary
characteristics are subject to change. If a change is advantageous to the
life form, then it is likely to persist.

The current consensus among anthropologists and rest of the scientific
community is that modern man emerged at least approximately 200,000 years
ago, and as a species has not changed biologically since then. The only
detectable differences between modern people and the first Homo sapiens are
superficial ones, such as culture and technology. The human species has not
been changed by evolution over the past two-hundred millennia.

Consider modern man today - he is an impressive specimen. Man can appreciate
and concieve advanced mathematical models in his mind. Man has an average
vocabulary comprising about 30,000 words - including such wonderful examples
as 'fractal', 'harmony', 'profound', and 'music'. He has ascended into
space, learned the laws of physics and applied them in a variety of clever
ways.

The human brain and mind have not changed during the past 200,000 years, so
the first Homo sapiens were obviously far more intelligent than they needed
to be. What practical use to the first humans could it possibly have been to
have possessed all of the potential for maths, music, art, philosophy, and
religion, and advanced high-tech civilisation?

According to the fossil record, Homo sapiens seem to have emerged suddenly
about 200 millennia ago with a fifty percent increase in cranial capacity,
together with the capability for speech and a fairly modern anatomy. Yet for
160,000 years man lived humbly using simple stone tools. Archaeology
indicates that modern behaviour only began about 40,000 years ago. Then,
suddenly, after about 1,000 years, man discovered agriculture. 6,000 years
later and man had formed great civilisations with advanced science and
astronomy, maths and geometry, tools, music, arts and crafts, religion,
educational institutes, local and national governmental organisations,
etc... It is only a mild exaggeration to call this period of four- to
six-thousand years ago 'modern civilisation but without electricity'!

THE MIRACLE OF MAN

One of the great unsolved mysteries of human evolution is how suddenly
modern man appeared.

One of the great unsolved mysteries of human civilisation is how and why it
began so suddenly after 200,000 years in the 'stone age'.

RELIGION: SCIENCE FACT OR SCIENCE-FICTION?

Until science solves these mysteries of mankind, it is interesting to note
that religion has offered answers to these questions since civilisation
began. At the onset of human civilisation 4,000 years ago, people living at
the time documented that man learned civilisation from Gods who descended
from space. The records of the ancients form the basis of the scriptures
that we inherit today.

BE INSPIRED

Take a moment to consider the comparison between mankind and other forms of
life on earth. Many people take it for granted that mankind is far superior
to other life forms on the planet, but what a difference! Consider the
advanced civilisation that we now live in, and imagine what the distant
future might be like.

I hope the reader shares my sense of absolute awe at the miracle of life,
and amazement at the  sheer brilliance of the human species that almost
seems to transcend our humble, beautiful planet earth.

C. B. Joe, 2002, for A.I.G.

"The Insider" Reports
A serious conspiracy theory.
http://www.theinsider.org


subject: Re: ALIENS: FACT OR SCIENCE-FICTION?

text:
Well your assumptions are not that solid.
1.  We only have a just a 'little' more IQ than the best ape.  BUT we talk
which is a very efficent way to spread knowledge.
2. Not changed much?  That is also a relative term, but since then races
have formed (altho that is a fuzzy term too), gotten genes to digest milk,
resist malaria, resist TB, resist alcholo, etc.
3. cranial capacity??

Religion is anti-Science.  One is based on faith one on facts.

Civilization from ET's??  Very weak evidence, especially given your points.

Now are there UFO's manned by ET's?  That is a question that has more
evidence and evidence we might be able to help verify.

Passwords wrote:
|| The theory of evolution is the generally accepted explanation for the
|| miraculous characteristics of life that we observe here on earth,
|| and it explains them very well.
||
|| There are, however, some characteristics of the human species that
|| set mankind far apart from all other life on earth, and seem to defy
|| the accepted principles of evolution. Could our current view of the
|| speed or timescale of human evolution be flawed? Or is there more to
|| life on earth than science has so far explained..?
||
|| 1. Human intelligence is so much better than that required to
|| survive on earth, and so much higher than all other life on earth,
|| that it is difficult to see how this can be explained by evolution
|| alone. How can we explain the remarkable intelligence of mankind in
|| evolutionary terms?
||
|| 2. Furthermore, according to current thinking, the human mind has not
|| changed since the species emerged thousands of years ago. What use
|| to Homo sapiens in 200,000 BC would the human mind be, that has the
|| potential to facilitate such things as art, religion, and high-tech
|| civilisation?
||
|| 3. One of the constraints upon human intelligence is cranial
|| capacity; that is, the amount of room in the skull for the brain.
|| The size of the human skull at birth is constrained by the
|| dimensions of the birth passage in the female anatomy. Is it
|| possible that one way in which evolution might increase human
|| intelligence could be to elongate the top of the skull into dome-
|| shape to provide additional capacity for brain tissue? (Just for
|| fun.)
||
||
|| A QUICK REVIEW OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
||
|| The characteristics of life on earth has been very slowly influenced
|| over the millenia by evolutionary factors.
||
|| The basic principles of evolution are common-sensical. It is a
|| process of natural selection, or survival of the fittest. Certain
|| properties of a life-form are passed on from one generation to the
|| next. These hereditary characteristics are subject to change. If a
|| change is advantageous to the life form, then it is likely to
|| persist.
||
|| The current consensus among anthropologists and rest of the
|| scientific community is that modern man emerged at least
|| approximately 200,000 years ago, and as a species has not changed
|| biologically since then. The only detectable differences between
|| modern people and the first Homo sapiens are superficial ones, such
|| as culture and technology. The human species has not been changed by
|| evolution over the past two-hundred millennia.
||
|| Consider modern man today - he is an impressive specimen. Man can
|| appreciate and concieve advanced mathematical models in his mind.
|| Man has an average vocabulary comprising about 30,000 words -
|| including such wonderful examples as 'fractal', 'harmony',
|| 'profound', and 'music'. He has ascended into space, learned the
|| laws of physics and applied them in a variety of clever ways.
||
|| The human brain and mind have not changed during the past 200,000
|| years, so the first Homo sapiens were obviously far more intelligent
|| than they needed to be. What practical use to the first humans could
|| it possibly have been to have possessed all of the potential for
|| maths, music, art, philosophy, and religion, and advanced high-tech
|| civilisation?
||
|| According to the fossil record, Homo sapiens seem to have emerged
|| suddenly about 200 millennia ago with a fifty percent increase in
|| cranial capacity, together with the capability for speech and a
|| fairly modern anatomy. Yet for 160,000 years man lived humbly using
|| simple stone tools. Archaeology indicates that modern behaviour only
|| began about 40,000 years ago. Then, suddenly, after about 1,000
|| years, man discovered agriculture. 6,000 years later and man had
|| formed great civilisations with advanced science and astronomy,
|| maths and geometry, tools, music, arts and crafts, religion,
|| educational institutes, local and national governmental
|| organisations, etc... It is only a mild exaggeration to call this
|| period of four- to six-thousand years ago 'modern civilisation but
|| without electricity'!
||
||
|| THE MIRACLE OF MAN
||
|| One of the great unsolved mysteries of human evolution is how
|| suddenly modern man appeared.
||
|| One of the great unsolved mysteries of human civilisation is how and
|| why it began so suddenly after 200,000 years in the 'stone age'.
||
||
|| RELIGION: SCIENCE FACT OR SCIENCE-FICTION?
||
|| Until science solves these mysteries of mankind, it is interesting
|| to note that religion has offered answers to these questions since
|| civilisation began. At the onset of human civilisation 4,000 years
|| ago, people living at the time documented that man learned
|| civilisation from Gods who descended from space. The records of the
|| ancients form the basis of the scriptures that we inherit today.
||
||
|| BE INSPIRED
||
|| Take a moment to consider the comparison between mankind and other
|| forms of life on earth. Many people take it for granted that mankind
|| is far superior to other life forms on the planet, but what a
|| difference! Consider the advanced civilisation that we now live in,
|| and imagine what the distant future might be like.
||
|| I hope the reader shares my sense of absolute awe at the miracle of
|| life, and amazement at the  sheer brilliance of the human species
|| that almost seems to transcend our humble, beautiful planet earth.
||
|| C. B. Joe, 2002, for A.I.G.
||
||
|| "The Insider" Reports
|| A serious conspiracy theory.
|| http://www.theinsider.org


author: Matt Giwer

subject: Re: ALIENS: FACT OR SCIENCE-FICTION?

text:
Passwords wrote:

	Your post will receive a much more appropriate reception in talk.orgins


subject: Re: ALIENS: FACT OR SCIENCE-FICTION?

text:
If you wish to take his seriously ...

	Brain to body weight ratio of course.

	As to talking, women must rule as they talk the most.

	Not really. It is only when there is a priesthood which can claim to have
all the answers and enforce it that it becomes anti-science. That is
almost a profoundly Western thing including the Jews who adopted
monotheism to get along with their heretic christian sect as best they
could.


subject: Re: ALIENS: FACT OR SCIENCE-FICTION?

text:
Well anti-science didn't mean all religion is against science, but it is
based on principles that are not scientific, i.e. faith.

The "profoundly Western thing" made no sense.  The biggest block of
anti-science religion today is in islam.  They have been in a dark age for
centuries and appear headed further back into the stone age.

"Matt Giwer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
talk


subject: Re: ALIENS: FACT OR SCIENCE-FICTION?

text:
;-) wrote:

	Love is not scientific. Music is not scientific. Not scientific is not
the same as anti-scientific.

	Islam is closer to Judaism than Christianity. I guess it matters where
you put the dividing line between east and west. With all the claims of
Islamic nations working on shibbolithic "weapons of mass destruction" I
would not have taken them as anti-scientific. All I have seen is an
adherence to the social and sexual customs of the "west" of about a
century ago.

	It may be of interest to you to know there has never been any objection
to evolution in Islam whereas we have are certain we have had
creationist administrations since Jimmy Carter. Although we are not
certain about Bush the First all the rest have asserted they are
creationists.


author: Nyrath the nearly wise

subject: Rocket slide rule?

text:
I'm looking for an item the Rand Corporation issued
back in 1959, either the item itself or a photocopy.

The "Rocket Performance Computer", RM-23003-RC,
a circular slide rule developed by a certain E.H.("Ed") Sharkey.

Does anybody know where I can find one?


author: Scott Lowther

subject: Re: Rocket slide rule?

text:
Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:

Never even heard of that before. However, if one turns up, a definite
service to the community could be rendered by scanning the components in
at high resolution...


author: Allen Thomson

subject: Re: Rocket slide rule?

text:
Nyrath the nearly wise <[email]> wrote

http://www.rand.org/cgi-bin/Abstracts/ordi/getabbydoc.pl?doc=RM-2300

Ten bucks American money.


subject: Re: Rocket slide rule?

text:
I've got some crude scans here:

	The disk itself looks like this:
	http://www.projectrho.com/rule/rpc0000.jpg

	Here are the first few pages of the manual,
	which explain what it does.  It does do
	a bit more than just delta V.

	http://www.projectrho.com/rule/rpc0001.jpg
	http://www.projectrho.com/rule/rpc0203.jpg
	http://www.projectrho.com/rule/rpc0405.jpg
	http://www.projectrho.com/rule/rpc0607.jpg

	It will handle specific impulse from 100
	to 2000 seconds, and delta V from 4000
	to 50,000 fps.

	But one would be better off just purchasing the thing.
	It's only $10.
http://www.rand.org/cgi-bin/Abstracts/ordi/getabbydoc.pl?doc=RM-2300


subject: Re: Rocket slide rule?

text:
Allen Thomson wrote:

OH!  Thankyouthankyouthankyou!!!

Ten bucks, what a steal!

Yes, I know that nobody uses slide rules anymore, but I find
that their use can often engender a "feeling" for the math
involved, a feeling that is more difficult to obtain via
computer programs.


author: Henry Spencer

subject: Re: Rocket slide rule?

text:
In article <[email]>,
Nyrath the nearly wise  <[email]> wrote:

Mine just came.  It's a nice little gadget... but there's an interesting
mystery I discovered while fiddling with it.

After reading the manual and trying it out, I randomly happened to flex it
a bit to peer in at the hidden surfaces of the middle and rear disks.  And
then I had to go back and look more closely to confirm what I thought I'd
seen.  *There are more scales in there!*

The back of the middle disk is blank.  But on the front of the rear disk,
there are the two outer scales for delta-V and Isp, and then two more for
the reciprocal calculator (the two little windows on the inner part of the
middle disk)... and then there are *three more scales* inside those!
They're completely hidden, entirely blocked by the opaque middle disk.

Working counterclockwise (that is, reading from left to right on the
disk), the first runs downward from 45 to 3.  The next runs downward from
60 to 10, the innermost from 65 to 20.  All three have what look like they
might be log scales.  Their ends are not precisely lined up, but they're
all in the same general part of the disk -- presumably meant to be read
through more windows in the near-blank lower half of the middle disk.  6
on the delta-V scale is at about 26, 46, 63; 40 delta-V is at about 3.4,
12, 23.

I wonder if there's anyone left alive who knows what they are and why
they're hidden?


author: John R. Campbell

subject: Re: Rocket slide rule?

text:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:10:44 -0400,
	Nyrath the nearly wise <[email]> wrote:

	Yes, there are times when I think that sliderules are good at
	training one to develop a certain "feel" for the numbers though
	precision is limited.

	I still have an old 6" Pickett that I keep at work;  I threaten
	to put it on a plaque (behind glass) with an "Emergency Use Only"
	sign (I'm an AIX Systems Administrator nowadays) but that'd
	trump the "Emergency Workstation" I installed in the next cubicle
	over: a 17 y/o Mac SE (that still works!).

	I sometimes think that the death of the sliderule made the
	Grumman "Flxible" buses *far* too flexible-  Designers start
	shaving margins and digital computers go along too well with
	that kind of exercise.

	My Dad's a retired P.E. and he derived too much pleasure in
	taking a listing from younger engineers, whipping out a sliderule,
	and walking them through various steps to prove them that the
	numbers were bogus (he had a "feel" for the "right" numbers,
	which, I suspect, can only be acquired from intimate contact
	with various computaional processes).

	Of course, a sliderule can get you into the ballpark so you
	know the neigborhood of the correct answer-  but that's more
	of the algorithmic transparency.

	However, computers are pretty good at carrying out various
	processes repetitively but, did you choose the right algorithm
	and are you using the right tables for the strength of materials?


subject: Re: Rocket slide rule?

text:
Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:

Oh, hell yeah!

Indeed. One of my favorites is my Nuclear Bomb Effects Calculator I got
in one of my copies of "The Effects Of Nuclear Weapons." How big's the
crater gonna be? Just dial it in!


author: Gordon D. Pusch

subject: Re: Rocket slide rule?

text:
[email] (Henry Spencer) writes:

[...]

Maybe they compute something that's still "classified"... :-I

-- Gordon D. Pusch

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


subject: Re: Rocket slide rule?

text:
Scott Lowther <[email]> wrote

I much enjoy the one I have also, but it's best not to use it
in public. ;-)


author: imanway

text:
The Expansion of the Universe in the Quran

What you are about to read might sound unusual but it could be very
enlightened
In 1929, in the California Mount Wilson observatory, an American
astronomer by the name of Edwin Hubble made one of the greatest
discoveries in the history of astronomy. While he observed the stars
with a giant telescope, he found out that the light from them was
shifted to the red end of the

spectrum and that this shift was more pronounced the further a star
was from the earth.
This discovery had an electrifying effect in the world of science,
because according to the recognized rules of physics, the spectra of
light beams traveling towards the point of observation tend towards
violet while the spectra of the light beams moving away from the point
of observation tend towards red. During Hubble’s observations, the
light from stars was discovered to tend towards red. This meant that
they were constantly moving away from us.

Long before, Hubble made another very important discovery: Stars and
galaxies moved away not only from us, but also from one another. The
only conclusion that could be derived from a universe where everything
moves away from everything else is that the universe constantly
‘expands’.

To better understand, the universe can be thought of as the surface of
a balloon being blown up. Just as the points on the surface of a
balloon move apart from each other as the balloon is inflated, so do
the objects in space move apart from each other as the universe keeps
expanding.

In fact, this had been theoretically discovered even earlier. Albert
Einstein, who is considered the greatest scientist of the century, had
concluded after the calculations he made in theoretical physics that
the universe could not be static.
However, he had laid his discovery to rest simply not to conflict with
the widely recognized static universe model of his time. Later on,
Einstein was to identify his act as ‘the greatest mistake of his
career’. Subsequently, it became definite by Hubble’s observations
that the universe expands.

What importance, then, did the fact that the universe expands have on
the existence of the universe? The expansion of the universe implied
that if it could travel backwards in time, the universe would prove to
have originated from a single point. The calculations showed that this
’single point’ that harbored all the matter of the universe should
have ‘zero volume’ and ‘infinite density’. The universe had come about
by the explosion of this single point with zero volume. This great
explosion that marked the beginning of the universe was named the ‘Big
Bang’ and the theory started to be so called.

It has to be stated that ‘zero volume’ is a theoretical expression
used for de******ive purposes. Science can define the concept of
‘nothingness’, which is beyond the limits of human comprehension, only
by expressing it as a point with zero volume’. In truth, ‘a point with
no volume’ means ‘nothingness’. The universe has come into being from
nothingness. In other words, it was created.
The Big Bang theory showed that in the beginning all the objects in
the universe were of one piece and then were parted. This fact, which
was revealed by the Big Bang theory was stated in the Quran 14
centuries ago, when people had a very limited knowledge about the
universe; Allaah says (what means): "Have those who disbelieved not
considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We
separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they
not believe?" [Quran 21:30]

As stated in the verse, everything, even the ‘heavens and the earth’
that were not yet created, were created with a Big Bang out of a
single point, and shaped the present universe by being parted from
each other.

When we compare the statements in the verse with the Big Bang theory,
we see that they fully agree with each other. However, the Big Bang
was introduced as a scientific theory only in the 20th century.

The expansion of the universe is one of the most important pieces of
evidence that the universe was created out of nothing. Although this
fact was not discovered by science until the 20th century, Allaah has
informed us of this reality in the Quran (revealed 1,400 years ago)
saying (what means): " And the heaven We constructed with strength,
and indeed, We are [its expander."[Quran 51: 47]

For more information about Islam
http://english.islamway.com/
http://www.islamhouse.com/
http://www.discoverislam.com/
http://www.islambasics.com/index.php
http://english.islamway.com/
http://www.islamtoday.net/english/
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/MainPage/indexe.php
http://www.sultan.org/
http://www.islamonline.net/
Contact Us At
[email]


author: [redacted]

subject: humans come before religion

text:
On Jun 2, 2:13 am, imanway <[email]> wrote:

Einstein called his introduction of a cosmological constant
the biggest blunder ("grösste Eselei") of his career, now
it shows that it may be linked with dark matter and dark
energy, dark matter having been first proposed by the
Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky.

A theory is a theory, nothing more than the present state
of knowledge, and some say the present state of ignorance.
A couple of new solutions of Einstein's very difficult equations
achieved by a German physicist working in the USA allow
a fluctuating universe that periodically contracts itself to
a tiny ball but no longer a singularity, so chances are that
the prevailing model of the Big Bang may be overcome
in a couple of years or decades.

The Big Bang is a very ancient idea, also present in
some of the Egyptian cosmologies: in the begin there
was nothing but a dimensionless darkness, particles
of clay hovered in the water, then they amassed
and formed a hill that rose above the waters,
a heron stood on the hill and did a loud cry, whereupon
the primeval mound opened up and released the sun
Ra and the sky Nut ... This idea of the begin comes
very close to the present model of virtual particles
hovering in a dimensionless vacuum, amassing,
and then rapidly expanding in a hypothetical event
called Big Bang, a fiery ball (aniticipating the sun)
in a growing space (we call the sky) ... One may say
that even the double B of Big Bang was anticipated
by the ancientn Egyptians, for the heron on the
primeval mound was called Benu Benu. And then
one may find more similar ideas regarding the origin
of the universe and realize that they reflect in one
way or another the genesis of a single living being,
so that the double B may well evoke the opening
of the lips, hinting at the opening of the vulva in
giving birth ... (Science claims to be free of
metaphors while making use of nearly as many
biological and psychological metaphors as
mythology and religion.)

While it's nice that also muslims begin to
realize the value of the sciences, I must
still say that sci.lang is a forum for linguists,
not for physics and religious propaganda.
Why don't you send your messages to an
appropriate forum?

And when we speak about Islam: a muslima
living and working in Switzerland was asked
for her opinion regarding human rights.
Muslims usually answer this and other questions
with a lot of words that avoid giving an answer,
she made it very short and clear: humans
come before religion.


subject: Re: humans come before religion

text:
On Jun 2, 8:00 am, [email] wrote:

In fact, Muslims (capital M) weren't not that bad in science back in
the old days, when Europe was living in darkest Middle Ages. It is
anybody's guess what went wrong since then.

, I must

Nice that you are coming to realize it, Franz. Your own Magdalenian
fantasies are not that different from religious propaganda, because
what they are, is essentially something like religious revelations.
You claim that you have a mystical rapport with Magdalenians, which
allows you to recreate (not "reconstruct", if you please) their
language. This is essentially the kind of stuff religions are made of,
but it has nothing whatsoever to do with science or scholarship.


author: Archimedes Plutonium

subject: Re: Movie by using quotes from other movies

text:
(posting from Florida)

I am about to leave Florida for South Dakota. And I figured out
what to horticulturally-grow in Florida on this land-- oak trees
to sell as firewood and haul up north. And to grow the indigenous blackberries via cuttings.

I am wondering if all trees are eventually doomed on Earth
except for paper-producing trees. Here in Florida I see
slash-pine trees farmed as if they were a corn crop, all nicely plugged into the ground and growing in straight rows.

Yesterday I posted a quote that I often think of in my life now,
the quote from Shakespeare's HENRY V where he says "I know thee
not". If you are not familiar with that quote and the context
of that quote it would be worth your while to check into it
thoroughly. Another quote along these lines is Kierkegaard
or some other Existentialist philosopher who said words to the
effect "Other people . . are hell"

I am happy in Florida also for the reason that I think a song
will be made and recorded about me, perhaps titled Plutonium
Man with perhaps words such as "Plutonium Man Plutonium Man, the most hated poster in the land,.. started at New Mexico
White Sand.. The observable universe
inside an electron-cloud-band"

Question: Anyone know of any superlatives for oak trees or oak
wood??


subject: Tarski's definition of infinity --- Help!

text:
OK, I give up. As Tarski defined it in 1924, "A set is finite if, and
only if, every nonempty family of its subsets has a minimal element,"
where a  minimal element  is a set  not  containing any member of the
family. Could anyone give an (infinite) counterexample?

Thanks a lot,

CFA


author: David C. Ullrich

subject: Re: Tarski's definition of infinity --- Help!

text:
On 28 Apr 2006 00:01:39 -0700, [email] wrote:

Of course nobody can give a counterexample, the definition is correct.

Probably you mean to ask whether someone can give an infinite
set and a family of subsets with no minimal element. That's
easy. Let S = {1,2,3,...} and consider the family of subsets
{S_n}, where S_n = {j : j > n}.

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

David C. Ullrich


text:
Sigh... how easy (some) things look in hindsight! Now I see why the
book does not even dwell on it. Sorry about my persistent confusion on
the concept of counterexample.

Thanks a lot, Prof. Ullrich!


author: LLutton

subject: Uploading to Magellan 315/320

text:
I want to upload some coordinates from Street Atlas USA V6.0 to my GPS 320 as
waypoints. What is the proper way to do this?

I connected the serial cable to my PC and the GPS when the PC was powered off.
Then I turned on the GPS and the PC.

On my GPS, I selected GSA 2.1 for the NMEA, and 9600 Baud rate (9600 was the
Baud rate on my PC).

In SA, I initialized the GPS and selected Magellan with waypoints for the gps.
I tried COM1 first, and then tried COM2.

I first tried to upload a short route (31 miles) with the start and end points
along with two vias. That seemed to be working at first until I noticed it just
kept repeating names and the route distance changed from 31 miles to 694 and
there suddenly appeared a red dot in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

That didn't work, so I tried uploading Drawing objects. I figured those could
be placed at the positions I wanted to make waypoints. All I got was the
message "Error uploading to GPS".

Can anyone shed light on what I should be doing? or if I can indeed do this? I
did upgrade from V3.14 to V3.15 on the GPS and that didn't make any difference.
I also downloaded two patches for SA 6.0 that was supposed to make the GPS
connection work better. I also tried COM2, and 4800 Baud rate for both COM's.

Thanks, Lynn


author: Jim Van Nuland

subject: Re: Uploading to Magellan 315/320

text:
LLutton <[email]> wrote:

  I regularly use 9600 baud with SA deluxe, SA 9, and EasyGPS.  However,
the SA program cannot talk to the GPS until the latter locks onto the
satellites.  If I am uploading, I sometimes bypass this lock-on
requirement by putting the receiver in Simulate mode.


author: Randy Boyd

subject: Re: Uploading to Magellan 315/320

text:
Hi,

Change your baud rate to 4800 on COM1, that's the only speed that will
work.

Good luck,

On 29 Mar 2002 02:28:29 GMT, [email] (LLutton) wrote:


author: B. Ito

subject: "Koi no Machi Sapporo"

text:
This is a well known Japanese kayou-kyoku in connection with the
famous big star, Ishihara Shintarou.

I translated "Koi no Machi Sapporo" into English "Lovely Town
Sapporo."  The literal meaning is "Sapporo was a town where I had
my first love."

Yu(u)jirou has many and many hit songs.  But I realize this is only the
second time I translated his hit numbers.  The first one was just
recently translated and posted here (s.l.j. , Thank you Cindy for your
advice March 1st, 2002). That was "Ginza no Koi no Monogatari",
a duet song.

"Koi no Machi Sapporo" was not a duet song but developed to be
also a duet song after his death. Kawanaka Miyuki is his partner.

I would like to hear any comments, suggestions about my English
translations and apprciate corrections of my English.

My self-explanatory comments:

 In Verse (3), there are two remarks to comment on.

　a).
 三、淋しい時　むなしい時
       Sabishii-toki numashii-toki
       Whenever_  I’m  lonely_  /  and  fee_l  some_  vanity_

There are two ways of reading  "Sabishii ......" and  "Samishii .......  ."
I confimred Ishihara singing "Sabishii ........" in his record 45rpm.

  b)
どこがちがうの　この町だけは
Doko ga chigau no kono machi dake wa
This  town  seems  to  ha_ve  /
                           something  different_  from  the  other_s

There seems to exist one problem of "ga" or "ka" as shown
hereunder:

    "Doko ga chigau no kono machi dake wa
             (ka)               Nazeka watashi ni yasashiku suru no."

   "I wonder where this town would be different from the others"

   "I'm sure this town is somewhere different from the others."
   "I'm sure there must be something different from the others."

I listened to his record (the 45rpm-doughnut-typed one) many times
to confirm that he sang "Doko ga ....." instead of "Doko ka......."

I checked the printed lyrics and those in laser disks and found that
there are "ga" and "ka"

I thought "Doko ka chigau no .........." would be better and grammatical
and still think it is.

Concerning such problem, I recall one TV program where the two
brothers were interviewed together.  His elder brother, Ishihara
Shintarou, writer and now mayor of Tokyo Metropolitan, complained
in front of the TV interviewer and his brother, Ishihara Shintarou,
that Shintarou would not sing exactly as he wrote for him.

Shintarou seemed to have sung his lyrics as he liked.

I translated this part as I liked.

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

        恋の町札幌
        Koi no Machi Sapporo
        Lovely Town Sapporo

　　　　　　　　　浜口庫之助:作詞    Hamaguchi Kuranosuke: Sakushi
　　　　　　　　　浜口庫之助:作曲    Hamaguchi Kuranosuke: Sakkyoku
　　　　　　　　　石原裕次郎:歌       Uta:  Ishihara Shintarou

一、
時計台の下で逢って
Tokei-dai no shita de atte
It  wa_s  un_der_  /  the  clock  tower_  we  me_t.

　　私の恋ははじまりました
    Watashi no koi wa hajimari mashita
It  was  a_ll  since  the_n_  /  that  my  love  story  ha_d  starte_d.

　　黙ってあなたに　ついてくだけで
    Damatte anata ni tsuite(i)ku dake de
I  soon_  learned_  to  follow_  /  in_  silence  after  you_.

　　私はとても　幸せだった
    Watashi wa totemo shiawase datta
And  I  was_  really_,  /  really_  happy_  with  you_.

　　夢のような　恋のはじめ
    Yume no youna koi no hajime
It  was  the  very_  star_t  /  of  my_  drea_my  lo_ve.

　　忘れはしない　恋の町札幌
    Wasure wa shinai koi no machi Sapporo
I’ll  never_  for_ge_t  /  my  lovely_  town_,  Sapporo.

二、はじめて恋を知った私
     Hajimete koi wo shitta watashi
 I  remembe_r  I  ha_d  /  experienced_  my  first  lo_ve.

　　やさしい空を　見上げて泣いたの
    Yasashii sora wo miagete naita no
I  couldn’t_  help  crying_  /  looking  u_p  at  the  tender  sky.

　　女になる日　だれかの愛が
    On-na ni naru hi dareka no ai ga
When  one  becomes  a  woman,  /
                           there   must  be  someone’s  true  lo_ve,

　　見知らぬ夜の　扉を開く
     Mishiranu yoru no tobira wo hiraku
When  the  door  for  the  night  /  will  be  firstly_  opene_d.

　　私だけの　心の町
    Watashi dake no kokoro no machi
It’s  my  special  town_,  /  my  mental_  hometown.

　　アカシアも散った　恋の町札幌
    Akashia mo chitta koi no machi sapporo
The  acacia  flowers  know, too_,  /  my  lovely_  town_,  Sapporo

三、淋しい時　むなしい時
     Sabishii-toki numashii-toki
Whenever_  I’m  lonely_  /  and  fee_l  some_  vanity_,

　　私はいつも　この町に来るの
    Watashi wa itsumo kono machi ni kuru no
 I_  have  a  habi_t  with  me_  /  to  visi_t  this  town_  alo_ne.

　　どこがちがうの　この町だけは
    Doko ga chigau no kono machi dake wa
This  town  seems  to  ha_ve  /
                           something  different_  from  the  other_s.

　　なぜか私に　やさしくするの
    Nazeka watashi ni yasashiku suru no
Somehow_  it  see_ms    /  to  be_  tender_  to_  me_.

　　恋人なのね　故里なのね
    Koibito nano ne furusato nano ne
So  I_  lo_ve  this  town_,  this  goo_d  o_ld  town_.

　　ありがとう私の　恋の町札幌
    Arigatou watashi no koi no machi Sapporo
I  say  “heartfull  thanks”  to_  /  my  lovely_  town_,  Sapporo.

.

                2002. 4. 6, 8, 23           Translated by:  B.  Ito


author: Sean Holland

subject: Re: "Koi no Machi Sapporo"

text:
in article aafvju$5g5$[email], B. Ito at
[email] wrote on 4/27/02 9:49 PM:

(snip)

I think it would be more dramatic and eye-catching to call it "Sapporo, the
City of Love" (but when you say it you have to drawl out the word love:
luuuuuuuuuuv)


author: Kevin Wayne Williams

subject: Re: "Koi no Machi Sapporo"

text:
Sean Holland wrote:

What, you think "My Cherry Popped in Sapporo" doesn't cut it? With the
Japanese fondness for cherry blossoms, it seems quite apt.

KWW

Note to B. Ito: The above is a vulgar joke ... don't take it as a
serious suggestion.


subject: Re: "Koi no Machi Sapporo"

text:
Sean Holland <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
the
--------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, Sean.
"Sapporo, the City of Love" sounds very nice.  I appreciate your suggestion.

That makes me feel change the last line of each verse to sing,

     "I'll  never  forget  /  the  city  of  love,  Sapporo."
                                 (my)
     "The  acacia  flowers  know, too,  /  the  city  of  love,  Sapporo."
                                                          (my)
     "I  say  "hearfull thanks"  to  /  the  city  of  love,  Sapporo."
                                                 (my)

I reversed the order of those two nouns in apposition to naturally keep the
original rhythm there ending with the same word "Sapporo"  both in Japanese
and in English.

May I place one question?   Could the following two phrases have more or
less the following different nuances ?

      "Sapporo, the City of Love"      (Everybody loves in Sapporo.)

      "Sapporo, My City of Love"     (I experienced love in Sapporo.)


subject: Re: "Koi no Machi Sapporo"

text:
Kevin Wayne Williams <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
the
------------------------------------------------------------
Well, well.  Thank you, KWW, anyway.
I could appreciate such a soft comment like yours, too.
Because it's much, much and much better than no comments at all.
I hope "Silence won't be not gold " in front of  my posts.


author: Bart Mathias

subject: Re: "Koi no Machi Sapporo"

text:
"B. Ito" writes:

I concur with Sean, but you don't ask enough questions, leaving out
"Which is preferable?" and "Is there a better one?"

I'd say the former is preferable, the latter too narrow.  Imagine the
person so taken with love that he/she (I didn't read the rest of the
song, but the title sounds she-ish) isn't really aware of anyone but
the aite, but can only imagine that anyone else there must feel the
same way.

I'd also say it's better without either "the" or "my."  Just
"Sapporo, City of Love."

The "city" bothers me.  Sapporo is, after all, a toshi, but "city"
seems too big, too cold, for a place all soaked in love.  Imagine
changing the Japanese "machi" to "toshi"?  Just as good?

But I don't know if you can get away with "town."  "Sapporo, Lover's
Town"?  Saa...

Still, everything is better than "lovely town," which has nothing to
do with love.

Bart


subject: Re: "Koi no Machi Sapporo"

text:
Bart Mathias <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
-----------------------------------------------
Thank you, Bart, for your nice comments.  I understand the matter
better.  Then it sounds to be better to translate the title as

       "Sapporo, City of Love"

and sing that part as

       " ....... / city_  of  lo_ve, Sapporo."

I faintly remember that somebody in this newsgroup sounded that
I must have trouble in chosing which suggestions to take because
I frequently changed what had once seemingly and finally been
decided.

Those people may think that I have not read one of the Aesop's
Fables. But I'd like to say I have.  I think I may be all right to carry
a donkey with my son to seek for and understand what is better.


subject: Re: "Koi no Machi Sapporo"

text:
"B. Ito" writes:

[....]

I'll remind you that there is a kind of caveat in my post, namely the
"I'd [also] say," followed by "Bart" as signature.

See what others think before final publication.  I find that
"Sapporo, my city of love" sounds a lot better today than it did when
I first thought about it.

Bart


subject: Re: "Koi no Machi Sapporo"

text:
Bart Mathias <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
------------------------------------------------
I think I'm following you well.
I understood enough that my usage of "lovely" of "lovely town" is out
of place.  I reflect that was my mistake in direct translation of
"Koi-no Machi" into English "Love Town."
Anyway you extended the usage of words and phrases
I also understand that you are rather inclined to accept the use
of "town" in the phrase like "Sapporo, My Town of Love.

I once read an article somewhere that the use of "town" is just
opposite between America and England.

      To English, "London" is a (big) town.
      To Americans, "New York" is a (big) city.

In general, doesn't the "city" sound "cool" ?
Wnen  a mayor says " my city", it is OK, because it means his
political ownership of the municipal city.
When a citizen says "my city", it normally means her residential place.
When a lover says "my city", couldn't she/he let it mean a good old
city in her/his memory where she/he had experienced unforgetfully
wonderful love ?  And wouldn't "town" be better than "city" in this
nuance ?

                   "Sapporo,  the Town of Love"

                   "Sapporo, My Town of Love"

                   "Sapporo,  Town of Love"

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


subject: Re: "Koi no Machi Sapporo"

text:
"B. Ito" writes, in response to things I said that don't need
repeating:

Actually, I'm not.  I don't think a city can comfortably be called a
"town" in English, whereas "Sapporo, koi-nomachi" or "Nagasaki,
minami-no machi" are quite cosy in Japanese.

I suspect there is no good English word for "machi."

Well, maybe it's "there is no good *American* word for 'machi.'"

In my current opinion, no.  (But there are some "town" lyrics trying
to get to my mind's ears.  The only one to make it so far is "It's a
lonesome old town."  Is that about a city?)

Bart
Bart


author: Don Kirkman

subject: Re: "Koi no Machi Sapporo"

text:
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Bart Mathias wrote in article
<[email]>:

I don't know; there's always "Chicago, Chicago, that toddlin' town," but
they needed that to make the rhyme.

Let's see:  Metropolis of love, Loveburg, Lovin' Village, Suburb d'Amour
- we just ain't got nothin' suitable between a town and a city, have we?


author: Debbie

subject: Wasps

text:
I live in Australia, and we have a problem with paper wasps. I discovered on
another newsgroup that there is a trap available for yellow jackets and
wasps (in the USA). Could someone tell me if the traps would be effective
for the wasps here in Australia? From what I understand, yellow jackets
burrow underground, so I'm thinking that something that would trap them
would not work on paper wasps?
All help appreciated.


author: Larry

subject: Re: Wasps

text:
The yellow jacket traps only are for the foraging wasps. The idea is to help cut
down the numbers where they may forage near people...around dumpsters at
schools...playground trash cans, etc. The paper wasps shouldn't be a problem
unless they are nesting near people traffic like around a door frame, or in the
bushes that for whatever reason kids may be disturbing. Any general insecticide
will usually kill the nest with one shot and you can probably find specialty
products that allow you to treat them from a distance. But if you are concerned
about large numbers of nests under the eaves and such, unless they are near
people (2-3 feet) there probably isn't a problem.
Lar

Debbie wrote:


subject: Re: Wasps

text:
Thank you for your replies. Our problem is not really with the wasps on the
nests. They buzz up and down our back patio, around the entrances to the
house, around the clothesline, etc. These are all places not easily avoided
by the family. Also the places that they frequent are not necessarily near a
nest, and I would love to know why they fly where they do. When they buzz
the patio, they only fly back and forth under the fascia, not landing on
anything, there is no source of food there, and no source of material for
their nests. The same applies to the clothesline (metal wires). Maybe if I
can work that out, I can find a way to discourage them from these areas?
TIA

Debbie wrote in message <3ae164ae$[email]>...
on


subject: Re: Wasps

text:
Thank you everyone for  your replies.

Debbie wrote in message <3ae164ae$[email]>...
on


subject: Re: Wasps

text:
How about using a vacuum instead of insecticide? Stick the bag in the freezer
when you're done and voila! No more wasps.

Kellie
In article <[email]>, Larry <[email]> writes:


subject: Re: Wasps

text:
The various types of wasps may a little different habits than the next, but you
may have witnessed this. In early Spring they are usually been found near plants
feeding on nectar or chewing on various plant material to gather supplies for
nesting. Early Spring still they may be around the eaves or other protected
areas looking for possible nest sites. Late spring into the Summer they are
constantly patrolling around eaves looking for spiders and the such. If they are
around the shrubs or trees, probably looking for caterpillars or aphids. And
then in late Summer the activity may liven up again around the eaves looking for
more food as they are trying to fatten up next years queens before they find a
place to winter over to start again next year. You will more than likely at any
time have a chance to see them buzzing about, but Spring and close to Autumn
seems to be the peek of the activity.

Debbie wrote:


author: donald haarmann

subject: Re: Wasps

text:
<[email]

---------
My experience with wasps (yellow jackets) he in the States is ï¿½ they
have a really well developed communications system! Round 'bout the fall
I put out sugar in a soup bowl add a little water and vegetable dye to
attract yellow jackets to photograph (the dye makes for a better picture
especially yellow jackets against a blue background). Within a week or
two I have them by the dozens and usually with 1 or 2 bald faced hornets.
Really happy yellow jackets as by that time of year food is that scarce. I can
get a close as I want with out them bothering me. I even had a nest of the
really nasty ground nesting ones not 10 feet away under the kitchen window,
attracted by my largess.

One day I needed one for pinning so I just grabbed the nearest victim with a
pair of tweezers...... with in 5 seconds I was stung on the ear. (He must of
been in a hurry as they usually sting above the eye!!) I looked up to
see ----- Wow!! I am now in the middle of 50 or more not very happy
striped yellow suckers! And more are a coming out of the ground by the dozens!!
A slow walk into the kitchen was made with out again being stung. 10 Minutes
latter all was back to normal.

Turns out there were several hundreds of yellow jackets in that underground nest.
What ever he said was either outside of my range of hearing or comprehension.
It was however, effective!


author: Shadow

subject: Allowable foundation pressures for isolated footings?

text:
I have a CE report that shows the allowable pressures

Continuous footings  - 1,800 psf
Isolated rectangular footings - 2,200.

The soil is dense dry silt + sand over sandstone.

He's out of his office for a while and I can't contact him.

Anyone know know why the word "rectangular" is used above.
For example, why wouldn't 2,200 be ok for a square or round footing?

Thanks

S.


subject: Re: Allowable foundation pressures for isolated footings?

text:
I would think that the emphasis is meant to be on "isolated" rather than
"rectangular", so that the 2200 would apply to round, square, pie-shaped or
whatever.  The question might be when does a rectangle become continuous?  I
imagine when the aspect ratio gets up to 3 or 4 to 1 or so.  When all is
said and done this does appear to be pretty academic - 1 tsf sounds like a
good number for just about any shape of footing, seeing as how there's
presumably a safety factor of 3 or so built in.

"Shadow" <[email]> wrote in message
news:jzVqb.1773$[email]...

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.533 / Virus Database: 328 - Release Date: 31/10/2003


author: R Tsen

text:
Isolated footings or also known as pad footings usually either square or
rectangle (round not so common) is to carry one column. Allowable bearing
capacity or pressure is expressed in load/unit area, pound per square ft
Regards
Richard T

"Shadow" <[email]> wrote in message
news:jzVqb.1773$[email]...


author: Red Dragon

text:
Rectangular is because the Bending Moment on the Length direction is greater
than the Bending Moment of the Breath direction .   That is why  the footing
is rectangular in shape and not square or round.

Khoon.

"Shadow" <[email]> wrote in message
news:jzVqb.1773$[email]...


text:
In Message-id: <jzVqb.1773$[email]>"Shadow"
[email] wrote:

A square footing is a rectangle.  Round would probably be ok for soil bearing
if it has a large enough area typically for a small load but is more difficult
to utilize with reinforcing steel if the area and thickness of the foundation
requires reinforcement to be placed due to bending stress in the foundation.
The important distinction is isolated vs. continuous.

                                           Mike Mowry
                                           [email]


text:
Thank you GOM and RT. Much appreciated.

Nice to know I am not alone :-)

S

PS, I was given a separate figure of 1,800 psf for continuous footings.

"R Tsen" <[email]> wrote in message
news:3fac972e$[email]...


author: Scott Steven Riley

text:
The footing could be any shape as long as the load is contained inside the
kern of the footing section.
"Red Dragon" <[email]> wrote in message
news:bokgg5$nr0$[email]...
greater
footing


author: Rob Munach

text:
RBot2 wrote:

Tell your Geotech to quit making your life so complicated and give you
one number, say 2000psf, for all conditions.


text:
"RBot2" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
<jzVqb.1773$[email]>"Shadow"
bearing
difficult
foundation
foundation.

Thanks Mike and everyone else for your posts.

The loads on the (round) piers vary from about 2,000 p to about 9,500 p,
so piers from 18" to 30" should be ok for vertical loads. Not sure what the
lateral forces are yet.

To an engineer possibly. I can see mathematicians wincing. Ouch!, Ouch!
Ouch!  ;-)

S.


text:
In Message-id: <53Xsb.9815$[email]> Shadow"
[email] wrote:

 How so?  I though the common definition mathmatically is that a rectangle is a
parallelogram with four right angles.

                                   [email]


author: Nur Serinken

subject: Electrical power line radiation health hazard

text:
I am collecting references on health hazards of 60/50 Hertz radiation.
Published or ongoing world wide research references will be appreciated.
Please e-mail replies.

Nur Serinken (613)-998-2289.


author: Rusty

subject: Re: Electrical power line radiation health hazard

text:
I tried to mail, but it failed, right at crcmar.crc.uucp.
<.....>
   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 crcmar.crc.uucp!nur... Host unknown

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
<.....>
To: [email]
In-Reply-To: <[email]>
Organization: Cadnetix Corp.,  Boulder, CO

In article <[email]> you write:

You should get a LOT of response from rec.ham-radio, there was
a discussion a while back over there about just that thing.
(Seems AP had totally mis-interpreted someones research)

I would be interested in a summary or whatever of your findings.
Note that I am replying from sci.electronics.  Thanks.

If you cannot get any help from rec.ham-radio, let me know
I MIGHT have the info SOMEWHERE...

    Rusty Carruth	N7IKQ	DOMAIN: [email]
    Cadnetix Corp.		UUCP:   cadnetix!rusty
    5775 Flatiron Pkwy.	        	{uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!rusty
    Boulder, CO 80301		(303) 444-8075


author: [redacted]

text:
Yes, there is some health hazard from electrical power line radiation.
What this means is, to use the same convoluted logic the anti-smoking
forces use --

Your right to electricity in your home is not superior to my right to
be free from harmful radiation. You do not have the right to use large
quantities of electricity in your community -- thus requiring these big
feeder lines -- if it means I may possibly die of cancer from it.

My god man, we are talking about human lives here! Is the right to use an
air conditioner in your home on a sultry summer night worth a human life?

Soon we will see cutesy little signs: There is a baby in the community.
Please don't run your electricity. Or, Thank you for not using your microwave
oven.

When are people going to begin realizing that the amount of pollution in
our world -- whatever form it takes -- is in direct proportion to the
lifestyle we choose to live.

We insist on using huge amounts of paper products via carry out restaurants.
We insist on using aerosol potions of all kinds, ranging from deoderants to
roach spray to spray paint. We ride an elevator up one floor at work instead
of using the stairs. We insist on using all sorts of plastic items which
the last I heard are *not* biodegradable within 500,000 years or so. We yell
at the makers of cola drinks who use glass bottles with no recyling plans...
yet we ignore the makers of mayonaisse, catsup, peanut butter and other food
products whose glass containers are randomly tossed out in the garbage dumps
in our communities which are rapidly becoming filled up....

And now you want to bitch about electrical radiation from power lines, and
third party cigarette smoke....

People should wise up; quit polluting the world themselves and change their
own buying habits to avoid products which cause pollution as much as
possible. Then -- if you still feel inclined, harp on things like electrical
power line radiation.


author: Amy Heidner

text:
There was some research done at Montana State University in the
seventies (due to the lines run from the big coal plants at Colstrip)
on the subject of power line radiation.  It included interference with
radio transmissions, but I don't remember if it included health
considerations.

You could get more information from:

Department of Electrical Engineering
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717

Amy Heidner	John Fluke Mfg   Everett, WA
	[email]


author: Steve Frysinger of Blue Feather Farm

subject: Eco-Lifestyles (was Re: Electrical power line radiations)

text:
-> When are people going to begin realizing that the amount of pollution in
-> our world -- whatever form it takes -- is in direct proportion to the
-> lifestyle we choose to live.

This is worth re-reading!

I don't think we should stop thinking about problems like power line
effects and dump location (to name a few).  But this person's point -
that WE are the CAUSE of the problems, is so true that it hurts.

The dumps fill with OUR garbage, the reactors generate power for
OUR appliances.  The plastic packaging is sold because WE buy it.
When each of US lives harmoniously with nature, all of the "THEM"
will go away due to lack of interest.

Touche'!

Steve Frysinger


author: Andy Freeman

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

Patrick was being sarcastic, but it turns out that a lot of people do
die due to heat.  It would be fairly cheap to reduce the total by a
lot, but that's not as sexy as medical research which doesn't save
nearly as many people even though it costs more.  Besides, most of the
people that it would help are old, in addition to being poor, so who
cares anyway.

-andy


author: Scott Roberts

subject: Re: Curing Heart Disease and Cancer

text:
A reference to this would be nice since it would show conclusively
that Pauling was wrong about something.  However, the relevance to
these cures for cancer and heart disease is small.  Of course, you
didn't actually say that too much vitamin A killed them.  It could
have been a lack of vitamin C.


subject: microcontroller & OS

text:
I use microcontroller (8 /16/32 bit),I would like to have OS running on
microcontroller.
What are the requirements(size of RAM/FLASH,Crystal,I/O pins) to run an
OS on microcontroller? What are the free OS available to run on the
microcontroller.
How a simple application will run on that OS? If possible explain with
an example...


author: BobG

subject: Re: microcontroller & OS

text:
What type of microcontroller? 8 bit? 16 bit? 32 bit? Pick one. There
are real time operating systems for each type. Google search will find
them. This sounds like a take home test question.


author: petrus bitbyter

subject: Re: microcontroller & OS

text:
<[email]> schreef in bericht
news:[email]...

Well,

Consider the old CP/M or a free version together with a "modern" Z80
derivative.

petrus bitbyter


author: Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

subject: Very Deadly H5N1 + Infectious H1N1 Pan-Flu --> Much Deadlier Pan-Flu

text:
"6 May 2009 -- The Ministry of Health has reported a new confirmed
case of human infection with the H5N1 avian influenza virus. The case
has been confirmed at the National Institute of Hygiene and
Epidemiology (NIHE).

The case is a 23 year old woman from Quan Hoa District, Thanh Hoa
Province. She developed symptoms on 16 April, was hospitalized on 21
April, and died on 22 April.

Investigation into the source of infection indicated poultry died of
influenza A/(H5N1) around her household.

Of the 111 cases confirmed to date in Viet Nam, 56 have been fatal."

Source:

http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_05_06c/en/index.html

Bottom line:

Genetic admixture for creation of a deadlier Pan-Flu is definitely
possible and a concern for those of us with insight into this.

What we are teaching to prepare folks in our local communities for a
much deadlier Pan-Flu:

http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/Pan-Flu

Be hungrier, which is truly healthier and more fit for survival:

http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthier

Love in the truth,

Andrew <><


subject:
Re: Very Deadly H5N1 + Infectious H1N1 Pan-Flu --> Much Deadlier
	Pan-Flu

text:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/93cabe601b5de21d?

<><

What we are teaching to prepare folks for the eventuality of a much
deadlier Pan-Flu:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmkax1wbRU

How to not be fearful:

Trust the truth, Who is Jesus !!!

http://T3WiJ.com

Love in the truth,

Andrew <><