text:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 22:22:41 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Tim
Kozusko" <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

TV is not a website.

As I thought, your comment is based on willful ignorance.

And no, CNN is no better.


author: Alain Fournier

subject: Re: N.A.S.A. : "Need Another Seven Astronauts"

text:
Rand Simberg wrote:

Yes, I have quoted the relevant part of the FAQ just a few messages
higher in the thread.
Do you have a point to make or are you just babbling?

Alain Fournier


author: George Evans

subject: Re: NASA knew damaged tiles could cause loss of hull

text:
in article [email], Hobbs at
[email] wrote on 2/15/03 10:06 AM:

Of course I agree. But even if the alarms are overlooked, suggesting that a
breach into the wheel well caused the thermal events means the breach has to
happen some time before any of the OSL's. Then how do the tires survive for
many minutes dangling out in the breeze.

George Evans


author: Tim Kozusko

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

Whether online or on cable, Fox news is Fox news.

How many times would you have me tune into Fox and see the utter bullshit
that they pass off as "news" before my opinion as to their journalistic
integrity becomes informed?  Just let me know and I'll get right on it.


author: Rand Simberg

text:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 23:25:28 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I made it.


text:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 10:42:11 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Tim
Kozusko" <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I would never have you "tune in to Fox" for that purpose.  (And I'm
still waiting for an example of the "utter bullshit that they pass off
as 'news'".)

As I said, a web site is not a television channel, regarless of your
mistaken opinion.


text:
Rand Simberg wrote:

If you did, it did not reach my newsgroup service provider. Unless your
point was about the practical difference between theory and practice.
That difference is widely known and not very relevant to the topic discussed
here which is whether it was possible to improvise until a manned rescue
mission
could be sent, utilizing unmanned cargo rockets to bring supplies to the
shuttle.

The fact that it is theoretically possible to get a Shuttle off within a
week
is in no way a proof that it would be impossible to get a Shuttle off within
three and a half weeks or maybe much more if you can get supplies from
unmanned cargo rockets to extend the in orbit survival time of the crew. If
you do have a point please post it, if not, stop babbling.

Alain Fournier


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

Heh, watch it.

What part of they both come from Fox news are you having a problem with?
Generally Fox is popular with the younger crowd who seem to appreciate its
form over content approach.  If this is what appeals to you for your source
of information about what is happening in the world then by all means go for
it.  Just don't expect it to be anything but fluff to anyone else.
hth


text:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 19:46:28 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

It did.  You just didn't get it.

It's not a proof, but the reality is that it would be so unlikely as
to be irrelevant.


text:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:40:23 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Tim
Kozusko" <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Another non response.

The part that says that a web site that offers news stories (including
stories from Reuters and AP, and other sources) is the same as a
television channel.


text:
Rand Simberg wrote:

Congratulations, this is a great improvement on your communications skills.
You have now given a reply which means something. This is much better
than your original reply "Rockets cannot be launched that fast. Read the
FAQ",
since the FAQ indicates that it is possible to do it. It is also much
better than all
the non informative post you have made since.

As for the substance of your comment, I don't agree. I would say that
the success
of such a mission is far from being a sure thing, but with the life of
seven persons
at stake it would of been worth a try. Is your comment based on any
evidence?

Alain Fournier


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

Looks like a response to me.  The joke is self-evident.  Just watch it.

I'll make a deal with you - if you think Fox news is so damned great you use
it for a source of information.  I will continue to hold the low opinion of
it that I do now.  I will not be alone.


text:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 06:18:55 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Twenty years of Shuttle operations, in practice.


text:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 14:01:47 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Tim
Kozusko" <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I do, regularly.  I guess I'm missing the joke, not that it has
anything to do with the Fox web site.

I do, as well as many other sources.

Yes, well, fortunately, ignorance can be cured, but only if one wants
it to be.  Enjoy.


text:
Rand Simberg wrote:

In those twenty years do you include 1985?

STS51-D launched Apr 12 1985
STS51-B launched Apr 29 1985

STS61-A launched Oct 30 1985
STS61-B launched Nov 26 1985

All those launched from the same pad. So the Shuttle doesn't need to sit
on the pad for all that long for a launch.

Alain Fournier


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

He thinks I'm ignorant because I don't watch Fox.  I'm so *hurt*.
Spare me.
Idiot.


text:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 17:04:47 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

It does now.  Note that those occurred (just) before we lost the
Challenger.


text:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 14:20:23 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Tim
Kozusko" <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

No, I think you're ignorant because you deliberately and arbitrarily
cut yourself off from news sources that you admit that you've never
even viewed.


text:
Rand Simberg wrote:

It does in normal procedure. We are talking about rushing a mission to
save the lives of seven astronaut. Is there any reason why it couldn't
be done if it is needed?

Alain Fournier


text:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 19:33:15 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Yes, because you'd be putting another orbiter at risk, and then we'd
have only two left.  Haste makes waste.


text:
Rand Simberg wrote:

You are being silly. If the life of seven astronauts depends upon taking
a small
risk you take the small risk.

Alain Fournier


author: sickwrister

text:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 20:19:46 -0500, Alain Fournier
<[email]> wrote:

We aren't talking about a "small" risk here guys.  Speeding up a
launch that way means screw the on-pad inspections and launch with red
lights all over the place.  Good way to kill another pair of
astronauts.  This ain't Hollywood.

The only way to make this acceptable is to KNOW that there is a
problem.  And even then you exhaust all other options first.  Hell! We
don't even know if a visual underside inspection would have revealed
anything!   We do know that these insulation impacts have happened in
almost every launch with no issues from them.  The shuttle is not as
delicate as so many seem to be taking it as.


author: JES

text:
"Alain Fournier" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
sit

Also, if there wasn't any risk, than the crew wouldn't make out a will
before going up. Although I understand that Ilan Ramon didn't make one out.
Since he was the only one that was mentioned that didn't make one, I assume
the other's did which means they knew of the risk of dying in the shuttle
and they took that risk anyway.


text:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 20:19:46 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

No, you're the one being silly.  We have a lot of astronauts, but now,
we only have three orbiters, and it would cost many billions to
replace them.


text:
sickwrister wrote:

Launches have been made that fast in 1984 to 1986. They had enough time
to do on pad
inspections. The Challenger disaster happened not because they didn't
have time to
see the ice on the solid rocket boosters but because they saw it and
made a bad judgement
about how serious it was. Speeding up the launch procedures is a risk
but that risk
has been taken several times.

Yes. No one here is saying that NASA should of launched Atlantis to
rescue the
crew of Columbia. We are only discussing whether it would of been
possible to
do it had it been known that the crew was doomed.

Alain Fournier


text:
Rand Simberg wrote:

A) Having two orbiters would be enough. (Of course you have spell out
that you will
be buying space transportation services from whoever can provide them in
the future.)
There is no need to hang on to orbiters for very long. In fact if you
don't hang on to
them you will save many billions.

B) If you save the crew, you don't have to destroy Columbia. You raise
it as high as
possible and then think about how to bring it down. So if you really
think it is important
to hang on to orbiters why not save the thing.

Alain Fournier


text:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 21:23:59 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Really?  I suspect that both the ISS and Shuttle program offices would
disagree.

You miss the point, which is that under your scheme, you're putting a
second orbiter at risk to save the crew of the first one.


text:
Rand Simberg wrote:

Well I guess you are now somewhat agreeing with me. My point from the very
beginning was that it was possible to do a rescue mission but that it
was risky.
Your point was "There wasn't time. Rockets cannot be launched that fast."

Alain Fournier


text:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 06:32:13 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Now we're going in circles.  That original point was about cargo
rockets.


text:
Rand Simberg wrote:

You are being silly again. There is no reason why cargo rockets can't be
launched
as fast as manned rockets. And if you really meant only cargo rockets
your statement
was written in an unclear way. Rockets does not mean cargo rockets, the term
applies to both manned rockets and unmanned rockets and you used it in a
reply
just after a paragraph which was talking about both manned rockets and
cargo rockets.
If you don't have anything intelligent to say, there really is no need
for you to
go on babbling. If you do have an intelligent comment to make please do.

Alain Fournier


text:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 19:05:01 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

There must be some reason, because they can't.  There was no way to
get a cargo resupply to the Columbia before the crew ran out of
consumables.

I was responding to the previous poster, who first used the term.


text:
Rand Simberg wrote:

Well this is a little different than your original point which was that
rockets can't
be launched that fast. Maybe there was no suitable rockets available
(but I would
be surprised if that was true). Still, your argument that "there must be
some reason,
because they can't" is a little surprising. If you don't substantiate
your claim I
will give it all the credence it deserves.

Alain Fournier


text:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 22:08:20 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

No, it's exactly the same point.  I'm sorry you weren't pating
attention.

My claim is amply substantiated by the accumulated history of space
activities, both in the US and abroad.


text:
Rand Simberg wrote:

Well I usually use french and not english and maybe I don't understand
the meaning
of those sentences but to me "There was no way to get a cargo resupply
to the Columbia
before the crew ran out of consumables" can be true even if "rockets
can't be launched
that fast" is false. That would seam to be the case if rockets can be
launched that fast
but at that time there was no suitable rockets available. What does it
mean to be pating
attention? Maybe you should pay a little more attention to what you
write :-)

I give to your claim all the credence it deserves.

Alain Fournier


author: Rob

subject: Duck with Foamy Eyes

text:
One of my white pekins has foamy liquid in his eyes. Is this an infection?
Does anyone know what I can do about it & whether it is life threatening?

Thanks


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Duck with Foamy Eyes

text:
It sounds like he's been fighting with other drakes, and got jabbed
in the eye. Try washing it out with an animal eye wash like
Opticlear...or just use clean water...and see if that doesn't clear it
up.  If it's actually an infection, you might try terramycin eye
ointment.
    Or if he's actually acting ill, you may need an antibiotic.

goose girl


author: Jerry D. Jones

subject: Re: Duck with Foamy Eyes

text:
Good advice, Goose girl. If he does need an antibiotic, I'd suggest
aureomycin. I've got a good feeling it won't come to that.

Happy Quackin'

Jerry

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


subject: Re: Duck with Foamy Eyes

text:
Thanks to both of you. I'll put him in another pen with only hens.

"Jerry D. Jones" <[email]> wrote in message
news:9enk38$stb$[email]...


author: oldmolly

subject: Re: Duck with Foamy Eyes

text:
Do your ducks have acess to a pool of some sort to splash in? Years ago I
had aylesbury ducks with this problem. The vet told me to get a kids
paddling pool for them and the problem cleared up.


subject: Re: Duck with Foamy Eyes

text:
The eye washing will go better, be less irritating and more soothing if you
use normal saline.  Just add 1/3 tsp salt to 1 cup water, then it will be
isotonic to body tissues and won't burn.  Try plain water in your eyes and
then normal saline if you don't believe me.  Makes a big difference.  You
could even use a bulb syringe to get a bit of force (not much though!)
behind it to really flush out the gunk in their eyes.
Roz
Rob <[email]> wrote in message
news:AMRP6.587$[email]...
jabbed


subject: Re: Duck with Foamy Eyes

text:
That's exactly what they have. It's about 1 ft. deep 4 ft dia. and I change
the water every couple of days.

"oldmolly" <[email]> wrote in message
news:BNcQ6.4844$[email]...
it


author: mihai cartoaje

subject: Re: R = 0

text:
I have calculated R for a charged black hole using maple and it is 0.

How come when we use the lagrangean method for GR without
electromagnetism we don't arrive at the charged black hole solution,
which has an action of 0? Is it because it is not a local minimum so
the action can be infinitely negative?


author: Tobias Fritz

subject: Re: R = 0

text:
No. With an appropriate stress-energy-tensor, we might have R=0, although
R_ab <> 0.

Consider the field equations

R_ab - R*g_ab/2 = T_ab

and take the trace of it (multiply by g^ab and use summation convention)

4*R - 2*R = T_ab g^ab

Defining T=T_ab g^ab, this means

R = T/2

So R=0 is equivalent to T=0. Now we just have to choose any
non-zero stress-energy-tensor T_ab<>0 with vanishing trace T=0. Take for
example a "fluid" with equation of state p = -rho/3, that should do the
job; then T_ab would be diagonal with entries (rho, -rho/3, -rho/3,
-rho/3).

Note that negative pressure is nothing peculiar in GR since a
gravitational constant acts like it would have pressure p = -rho.

HTH,
  Tobias


subject: Re: R = 0

text:
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 [email] wrote:

The tensor equation R_(ab) = 0 is equivalent to the tensor equation
G_(ab) = 0, so either of these can be taken as the Einstein field
equation (EFE) in the vacuum case (no matter or non-gravitational fields
present).  This follows easily from the "trace-reverse duality"

 	G_(ab) = R_(ab) - R/2 g_(ab)

 	R_(ab) = G_(ab) - G/2 g_(ab)

The scalar equation R = 0 is implied by the vacuum field equation, but
the converse is false.  Null dust solutions, which in gtr model things
like incoherent electromagnetic radiation propagating in an otherwise
empty region of spacetime, are examples of nonvacuum solutions of the
EFE which satisfy this scalar equation.  There are many others.

"T. Essel"


author: Jonathan Thornburg -- remove -animal to reply

subject: Re: R = 0

text:
[email] wrote:

No.  $R = 0$ is a single (scalar) equation.
The 10 (Einstein) vacuum GR equations are $R_{ab} = 0$.
($R$ is the trace of $R_{ab}$.)

In particular, $R = 0$ has (lots of) solutions which don't satisfy
$R_{ab} = 0$.

ciao,


author: Igor Khavkine

subject: Re: R = 0

text:
[email] wrote:

If by R you mean the Ricci scalar, then No. Vacuum solutions are
characterized by the vanishing of the RHS of Einstein's equations (the
matter stress-energy tensor). Which corresponds to R_uv = 0, with R_uv
being the Ricci tensor. For example, the stress-energy tensor of the
electromagnetic field is traceless, hence any solution to the
Einstein-Maxwell equations has R = 0, but in the scrict sense does not
represent a vacuum. Such solutions, however, are referred to as
electrovacua. On the other hand, when a cosmological constant is
present, the Ricci scalar need not be zero even in the absence of
matter fields.

Hope this helps.

Igor


subject: Re: R = 0

text:
sorry for the stupid mistake, here is the correction...

This should be: take a fluid with equation of state p = +rho/3. Then T_ab,
in an orthonormal basis, is diagonal with entries (rho, rho/3, rho/3,
rho/3), so that T vanishes
since we contract with the metric (+,-,-,-).

For example, a photon gas has p=rho/3. This is actually used to model the
"radiation era" of the early universe.

Is T=0 for a photon gas related to the fact that photons travel on null
geodesics?


author: Rhys Anderson

subject: Vinegar & timber floors

text:
Flooring companies (i.e. ones that make timber basketball courts) write in
their literature that floors should be cleaned with water and vinegar. They
state this rejuvenates the grip of a worn floor, I have heard it works from
players as well.
What is happening?


author: John Spevacek

subject: Re: Vinegar & timber floors

text:
"Rhys Anderson" <[email]> wrote in message news:<3e645185$0$12816$[email]>...

It's this really sophisticated chemical technique called "cleaning the
floor". Most urethane finishes do fine with basic (ammonia) cleaning
solutions, but acrylics do much better with acidic (vinegar)
solutions.

John


author: Mark Tarka

subject: Re: Vinegar & timber floors

text:
"Rhys Anderson" <[email]> wrote in message news:<3e645185$0$12816$[email]>...

What is happening is, that you've failed to
ask this question of the companies that
write in the literature that floors should
be queened with water and vinegar.  Thanks
for another load of cluelessness.

  Mark (Had it on the cross...tastes like s%#t :-)


subject: Re: Vinegar & timber floors

text:
"It's this really sophisticated chemical technique called "cleaning the
floor". Most urethane finishes do fine with basic (ammonia) cleaning
solutions, but acrylics do much better with acidic (vinegar)
solutions."

But vinegar does not clean a floor and the company I am dealing with
acknowledges this fact as well. You cannot clean up fatty acids from a
sports floor with a simple acid, the chemistry and soil suspending
properties are not there.
I was thinking the process was a bit more in-depth i.e. you are changing the
omu resin back into a fatty acid thus creating a tacky surface that gives
more grip.
Also why do you claim that acrylics do better with an acidic solution.


author: d h

subject: Re: Vinegar & timber floors

text:
Mark Tarka wrote:

Careful, famous last words.
Shouldn't the T and the C be capitalized?

Cleaned.  Freudian/Jungian slip or something?


subject: Re: Vinegar & timber floors

text:
"Rhys Anderson" <[email]> wrote in message news:<Bdb9a.73$[email]>...

Vinegar is not the best at cleaning grease, but it will work. Vinegar
and water is an old time cleaning solution used by grandmothers around
the world (lemons are along the same line - hence the extensive use of
lemon fragrence in cleaning solutions - it provokes the old memories
of cleanliness).

I don't understand how you can be concerned that vinegar won't clean
up fatty acids, but then propose that it reacts with the coating to
make a fatty acid and that this second fatty acid is good, but the
first fatty acid is bad.

When I built a house about 8 years ago and put it wood floors, I was
concerned that the urethane finish would yellow too quickly, so I went
with an acrylic (I suspect an acrylic-urethane, but the exact chemical
makeup was regarded as proptietary by the manufacturer). The
manufacturer was very insistant that vinegar Windex be use to clean
the floor and not the more common ammonia Windex.

John


subject: Re: Vinegar & timber floors

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

Uh...yes.  Forgot the quote marks.  Sorry.

No.  T is temperature; t is time...happened
a long time ago.  C is the food calorie; c
is the speed of light...I got out o' there
asap.

Not really...thought it was funny...treat your
sweetie like a queen and maybe she'll clean the
floor between trips to the mall.

  Mark


author: Zinc Potterman (delete 123's to reply

subject: Astroart compatiblity with WIN2000

text:
Please can somebody tell me if Atroart will run in WIN2000
I'm using Starlight Xpress MX516 or at least trying to.
Thanks


subject: Re: Astroart compatiblity with WIN2000

text:
Thanks for info.
There seem to be problems with Starlight site at present.
I will try again.


author: Stephen Paul

subject: Re: Astroart compatiblity with WIN2000

text:
Zinc Potterman wrote:

Ask this in the Starlight Xpress Yahoo group.

I seem to remember there being a problem with my MX5-C (not
AstroArt)under Windows 2000.


author: Chi-hung Yeung

subject: Re: Astroart compatiblity with WIN2000

text:
I had used Astroart in Win2000 without problem.

Zinc Potterman wrote:


author: Roger Hamlett

subject: Re: Astroart compatiblity with WIN2000

text:
"Zinc Potterman" <[email]. (delete 123's to reply)>
wrote in message news:[email]...
The Starlight site should be OK, but has basically (currently), lost it's
archives (Terry is trying to rebuild some of these), and _will_ require
you to register to post. It was the subject of a spam attack (over several
hundred items a day), a couple of weeks ago, so the permissions have been
changed to require everyone to be registered to post. Post a mail to
Terry,with the name and password you want, and within a few hours, you
should have the required registration.

Best Wishes


subject: Re: Astroart compatiblity with WIN2000

text:
"Stephen Paul" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
The standard Starlight software, won't talk to parallel port cameras,
under anything latter than W95 (up to ME), without using a bodge, to turn
off the port I/O security (Allowio). AstroArt, handles this OK. There was
a fault with AA, regarding screen I/O, which gave a 'grey screen', when
loading/working with some types of images on W2K. The latter GUI fixes
this (at the time, when this first appeared, there was a fix available for
download seperately).
Commonest setup problem with the parallel cameras, is getting the port I/O
addresses wrong. The actual address used for 'LPTx', varies on different
machines, so the best thing to do, is to look in the system details, and
note the actual port addresses used by the card, then use these addresses
in AA.
AA, should work OK on W2K.
If there is a specific problem, post to Starlight's own site, the Yahoo
AstroArt group, or the Yahoo Starlight group, giving details of what is
actually 'wrong'.

Best Wishes


author: Koos Nolst Trenite

subject: The "Become Perfect"-Mind-Control of Hinduism, Buddhism and New-Age Cults - {HRI 20050514-V3.1} (Version 3.1 on 14 June 2005)

text:
The "Become Perfect"-Mind-Control of Hinduism, Buddhism and New-Age
 Cults

                                                          14 May 2005
                                                   {HRI 20050514-V3.1}

                                                         (Version 3.1
                                                      on 14 June 2005)

                                                (Suitable for foreign
                                                    language students)

'

You can feel the Beauty of someone, and you can create things that
 are Beautiful in some way

     - the whole idea of "perfection" has just nothing to do with it,
       as there is no such thing or quality as "perfection."  *(0)

'

     But the idea has been introduced, even as "the goal of life," by
     Criminal Minds, whose joy and delight it is to make your life
     miserable in some or in many ways,

           who introduced it with the sole purpose indeed to make your
           life miserable, and

           to get you to agree to make the life of others miserable as
           well,

                "to judge people by 'standards of perfection'," that
                 are enforced by Criminal Minds, who, like gurus,
                 claim to be the ones who are "perfect,"

     instead of judging people as who and what they are,

           which is what Criminal Minds - and the Destructive Cowards
           who help them - vehemently oppose and destroy your ability
           of:

                 Judging people as who and what they are,

     which again has nothing at all to do with "how perfect someone
     is"

           ... a person is who he is,

           and yes, you can judge that, who he is, what kind of person
           he is - also when he has two broken legs, or when he is
           just born and a baby -

                 should you be able to see (to feel and to recognize
                 correctly) the soul of another,

                 and be able to see and recognize the soul of those
                 who are basically decent, and

                 be able to see and recognize the small minority of
                 souls, who are Criminal Minds:

                      The ability to see and sense that difference,
                      and also in general to see the soul of people
                      - who they are.

'

                 Which is an ability I most highly recommend you to
                 get back,

                       and, which is an ability that is more valuable
                       than any "Enlightenment" or "Awakening" that
                       any 'guru,' of the 'Old Age' (the gurus of the
                       East) or of the 'New Age' (the Western "gurus")
                       can give you,

                 because the ability to see who others are, makes you
                 a friend to others, and to yourself too.

'

I will repeat that for you:

     The ability to see who others are, makes you a friend to others,
     and to yourself too.  *(1)

'

There IS the ability to see and feel others, which must be the most
 valued quality for people to experience:

    If one looks around anywhere at what people do, one must conclude
    that people generally find, that that is the most valued quality
    of life to experience - to feel other people, their souls.

'
'

There IS the idea of making something Beautiful, and there IS the
 practice of regaining some awareness of (again connecting to)

     your own Beauty and (again connecting to)

     your own abilities (your own Energies of desiring) to create
     Love, and

    (your own Energies of desiring) to feel life,

           to feel what is happening and what has happened in the
           past, and

    (your own Energies of desiring) to feel others,

           to feel their souls of course, as people are souls.

'
'

When however the very false idea of "perfection," is applied to the
 condition of your soul, this evolves into something as idiotic as
 'wanting to have life, but without motion,'

 which is 'being dead forever,' 'being "free of life",' and

     - which, in various wordings of greater or lesser camouflaging
       abstraction, you find as basic Hinduist *(a) and basic Buddhist
       teachings "about life."

     And the ideas and practice of "reaching towards perfection," or
     of "reaching towards enlightenment," or of "reaching for an
     awakening of your soul,"

     these things have been introduced by Criminal Minds and are used
     on and have been forced into and onto the soul of their victims,

            camouflaged as "true Care for people" and as "universal
            and unconditional Love," as "Cosmic Law," as "Divine
            Truth," as "World Teaching," and so on,

     all to hide the goal of making others want to be "free from
     suffering," (meaning, 'unable to face Criminal Minds'),

     and "free from wanting to be alive," (meaning, 'unwilling to face
     Criminal Minds'),

     and "free from wanting to feel the Beauty of others," (meaning,
     'following the intentions and commands of Criminal Minds'),

     and "free of wanting to care for and to enjoy the company of
     those you love most," (meaning, 'having chosen the side of
     Criminal Minds'),

 which inevitably leads to creating ideas "about life," and results in
 practices or excercises, that have the purpose

 to MAKE others (and each other too) forever and wholly destructive of
 awareness of life and thus of life itself, and - by necessity, by
 consequence - doing so while they are

     inevitably having the desire to be actively and severely lying
     about life and about people, and about their own intentions as
     well, and

     inevitably desiring to be destructive of ALL life, destructive of
     ALL people, and that 'forever'

           - which IS of course (it inevitably translates into) a
             truly hidden or camouflaged (and thus a really intense,
             while entirely un-examined and unchecked) Hate for life
             and for people, and thus

             it IS (it inevitably translates into) the desire to make
             people Unconscious or Euphoric (Spiritually Drugged)
             about the actual nature of life and of people and of the
             past,

             and to make people want Ugliness as "Beauty" (which is a
             very severe form of lying about life, and viciously
             reversing of the nature of life) - but which is, again,

 camouflaged as "true Care for all people" and as "universal and
 unconditional Love," as "Cosmic Law," as "Divine Truth," as "World
 Teaching," and so on, and as "the actual goal for being alive."

 As "becoming perfect." Really...

'
'

           As you know, I have been studying the intense evil of
           'scientology' for a while, in order to find out about the
           methods used by indeed the most intensely, most insidiously
           and spiritually most forceful Criminal Mind known

           - which brings me to

            'Yet Another Definition Of 'scientologist':'

                 1. Someone who has been certified as "being sane" by
                    Satan (by l. ron hubbard) or ('Clear' as he calls
                    it, but which is actually the temporary state of
                    being immersed in his blinding and numbing, but
                    very "pleasant" Euphoria or 'Drug Energies')

                    or, who has been certified by Satan (by l. ron
                    hubbard) as "being on the road to (working to
                    acquire or to bring about) one's own as well as
                    other's sanity" (to 'Clear the planet,' as Satan
                    calls it)."

                       You have to know

                             - I studied 'scientology' more deeply and
                               more precisely than anyone else, and I
                               did so NOT from Satan's (NOT from
                               l. ron hubbard's) viewpoint of what he
                               wants people to think of 'scientology'
                               and of him, once I broke through that -

                        that - not some, but ALL - his 'scientology'
                        terminology AND all its practices are designed
                        solely to bring about a FALSE "understanding"
                        of life, and

                        to bring about an INABILITY to feel the nature
                        of life and of people as these actually are
                        (and of you as you actually are) and

                        to bring about an INABILITY to feel the past
                        and the present as it actually is,

                        WHILE pretending to teach those abilities, and
                        of course he enforces and fixates those
                        inabilities in people,

                        BY pretending to teach it, and - which you
                        already might have guessed - by pretending,
                        that

                            "he is the 'only one' who does teach about
                             the nature of life and people;" (or "he
                             is 'Source'" as he calls himself *(5))

'

           - and then there is another, more interesting definition of
             'scientologist':'

                 2. A past life Hinduist, *(a)

                    who failed (to "become perfect" or "enlightened"),

                    who failed to "end the existence of himself as
                    himself," (who failed to "extinguish  his desire
                    to be part of life and to be with people"), and

                    who became in a later life time a Buddhist, *(b)

                    who also failed (to "become perfect" or to become
                    "enlightened," to "end his own suffering," etc.)
                    and

                    who became in a later life time (a Nazi or other
                    fascist or a communist, etc.)

                             enforcing or supporting dictatorship,
                             also with the desire to establish a
                             "perfect" system "where people can become
                             or be 'perfect'," and

                    where he also failed to establish "perfection."

'

I will repeat here:

There IS the idea of making something Beautiful, and there IS the
 practice of regaining some awareness of (again connecting to)

     your own Beauty and

     your own abilities (your own Energies of desiring) to create
     Love, and

    (your own Energies of desiring) to feel what is happening now, and
     what has happened in the past, and

    (your own Energies of desiring) to feel others.

'

When you simply create or feel something Beautiful,

     the whole idea of "perfection" has just nothing to do with it, as
     there is no such thing or quality as "perfection,"

     but it has been introduced, by Criminal Minds, with the sole
     purpose of making your life miserable, and

     to get you to agree to make life of others miserable as well,

                "to judge people by 'standards of perfection'," that
                 are enforced by Criminal Minds, who, like gurus,
                 claim to be the ones who are "perfect."  *(0)

'

           In other words, their victims are forever tricked and are
           forever following the total-mind-control command

                'to be perfect,' "you can be perfect," or "you want to
                 be perfect," and

                "others must become or be made perfect."

'

                       And in the case of a Criminal Mind controlling
                       (an)other Criminal Mind(s),

                       the total-mind-control command that is accepted
                       by Criminal Minds is:

                      "You actually ARE perfect," or

                      "You actually ARE a (potential) 'God',"

                             with which they mean "a Dictator."

                       Really... they define 'God' as "a Dictator,"
                       as (a) Satan.

                       And that's what they call 'perfection.'

'

                 But as 'perfection' can not be measured, they have
                 to - and indeed they do - judge their "perfection"

                 by the amount and intensity of Admiration they get
                 from others or generate for themselves, *(4)

                       or that they are GIVEN INTENTIONALLY by evil
                       people (by Criminal Minds) who enjoy making
                       others insane in that way. (One has been named
                       Satan, above.)  *(4)(5)

                 This you see then again in dictators,

                       and not only in political dictators, but also
                       in dictators of religion, dictators of science,
                       dictators of medicine, dictators of art, etc..

                 They trick people not only into Admiring them, which
                 already is a form of blind compliance with their
                 wishes, but they trick you

                 also into giving them your Energy "unconditionally,"

                 and into letting them command your Energy totally,
                 "for your own good," "for you to reach 'perfection',"

                      as in the case of the Hinduist and Buddhist
                      guru, and the various New Age equivalents of
                      these, which go by slightly different names;

                      but also in various other forms of dictatorship,
                      whether fascistic or communistic in flavor,

                      that are "necessary" ..."to bring about
                      'perfection,' or 'freedom'." Really...

'

                             When you can't even detect (much less
                             perceive) the soul of a Criminal Mind,
                             and his or her intentions (Energies),

                             these gurus tell you, and "teach" you,
                             that 'you must now "reach for
                             perfection" - for the "perfection of
                             your own soul".'

                             That is like demanding of a blind man to
                             practice the art of painting, "because
                             that is the art-form that belongs to
                             seeing."

                                   In other words, they PRETEND that
                                   they are teaching to see, IN ORDER
                                   to make you NOT get the idea of
                                   looking at them, at THEIR soul as
                                   it really is,

                                   they PRETEND to teach, in order to
                                   make you forget wholly and forever,
                                   THAT you can not see (them and
                                   others as they are),

                                   and they PRETEND to teach, to MAKE
                                   you pretend and even convinced,
                                   that "you now can see."

'

                       As I wrote elsewhere, they do so by attracting
                       you with some truth (Energy) that you had been
                       made unaware of (Energy that you had lost), and

                       they "give it back to you" IF you also believe
                       and do not look through the lies and pretense

                             that are attached to and wrapped inside
                             the truth - the truth that you do
                             recognize and do feel is on the outside,
                             to hide the lies and actual intentions
                             and actual truth that will remain forever
                             hidden if they succeed - which they have
                             succeeded in hiding, for some ten
                             thousand years, BY pretending to teach
                             the whole truth, by pretending "to be
                             perfect."  *(0)

'
'

Again:

The whole idea of 'perfection' is as idiotic as 'wanting to have life,
 but without motion'

     - and the idea has been introduced, is used and has been forced
       into the soul of their victims by Criminal Minds,

 to MAKE others (and each other) forever and wholly Insane (with the
 desire to be continuously severely lying and destructive of all life,
 being destructive of all people, forever).

'
'

But it is YOUR nature to be alive, and it is YOUR nature to let others
 enjoy the Beauty of life and to enjoy the caring Beauty of each
 other, also, of course, mine,

Koos Nolst Trenite "Cause Trinity"
human rights philosopher and poet

                                       'Solomon's wisdom was greater
                                                  than the wisdom of
                                             all the men of the East,
                                                         and greater
                                        than all the wisdom of Egypt.'

_________
Reference:

     'The Feeling "When God Has Left You..."
      - Introduction to 'What is Hell' ' {HRI 20031124-V3.1}
       (24 November 2003 - Version 3.1 on 22 Feb 2005)
http://www.googlegroups.com/group/alt.religion/msg/23195f139766162f?fwc=1
'

_________
Textnotes:

(a)  'Hinduist' - Someone who has been made to believe or who makes
                  others believe the spiritual data of Hinduism to be
                  correct and all-encompassing, and who pursues
                  actively the exercises and practices of any form of
                  Hinduism, in order for himself or herself to "gain
                  perfection" at some future but undetermined time.

                  Hinduists "explain" much in terms of past and future
                  lives, yet they have no accurate knowledge at all
                  about their own past lives, nor about that of Earth
                  itself. Instead, their 'knowledge' is mostly and
                  INTENTIONALLY very false ("knowledge" created and
                  taught deliberately by Criminal Minds, as "Divine
                  Truth").

                       The actual sources of imperfection (Criminal
                       Minds) are not recognized at all, but explained
                       away

                             for instance as "evil done BY YOU in your
                             past life,"

                             rather than the truth, which is 'Evil
                             that has been done TO YOU,

                                   and in particular (very, very much
                                   and extreme evil that has been done
                                   TO YOU, by Criminal Minds and by
                                   Criminal Minds only,)

                             in previous lives.'

                       Decent people are decent people, also in their
                       past (lives), but they may have been tricked
                       by Criminal Minds to some extent,

                       as they may now and in the future also be
                       tricked by Criminal Minds into doing some evil,

                            (as long as they continue NOT to detect
                             and NOT to recognize and understand
                             Criminal Minds)

                       no matter how "perfect" or "noble" or
                       "enlightened" you are or may again have become.

'

                  I do not use the term 'Hindu,' as it is a very
                  general term, that loosely refers to anyone more or
                  less following the customs and cultural tastes that
                  prevail(ed) in India.

'

(b)  'Buddhist' - Someone who has been made openly to believe the lie,
                  as "Noble Truth," that "life is suffering,"

                       and while he may agree with the Hinduist lie,
                       that "suffering is necessary or even vital to
                       gaining perfection ('developing consciousness,'
                       as they call it),"

                  the Buddhist at the same time claims evil to be
                  "handled" *(3) BY NOT facing the source of it

                       - Criminal Minds, and only Criminal Minds cause
                         the suffering, any suffering - which the
                         Buddhist "handles"

                  instead by gradually destroying or trying to destroy
                  his own Life Energies - till he or she is not even
                  aware of life existing anymore, nor of who he is,
                  himself - and by

                  thus leaving others to continue to suffer even more
                  unprotected (and even more debilitated by false
                  "knowledge") at the hands of the Criminal Minds,

                      "proving" their lie even further, that "life is
                       suffering."

'

                  Some Hinduists (and also Hindus) believe Buddhism to
                  be 'just a flavor of or another appearance of
                  Hinduism.'
'

_________
Footnotes:

(0)  'Explaining The Scale Of Sanity' {HRI 20040619-V3.4}
       (19 June 2004) (Version 3.4 on 2 Sept 2004)
http://www.googlegroups.com/group/alt.education/msg/7ee775b1a7d5b10f?fwc=1

(1)  'The Promised Definition of Friendship' {HRI-20050327-V2.4.1)
       (27 March 2005 - Version 2.4.1 on 7 Apr 2005)
http://www.googlegroups.com/group/alt.politics/msg/d347caafe433b2f0?fwc=1

(2)  'Rights of Criminal Minds' {HRI 20040108} (8 January 2004)
http://www.googlegroups.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/4a17f5ae89e89655?fwc=1

(3)  'Defining Destructive Coward (Definition)' {HRI 20050610}
       (10 June 2005) (to be issued soon)

(4)  'Criminal Minds ENJOY LYING, And THEY Know They Intentionally Lie'
      {HRI 20050527-V3.5} (27 May 2005 - Version 3.5 on 10 June 2005)
http://www.googlegroups.com/group/human-rights-issues/msg/ecc4b12aaae92dcf?fwc=1

(5)  'Understanding The Origin Of Evil' {HRI 20031025-V1.1}
       (25 October 2003 - V1.1 on 3 Nov 2003)
http://www.googlegroups.com/group/soc.culture.europe/msg/4e38785914c23869?fwc=1
'

____________
Verification:

        http://www.angelfire.com/space/platoworld
'

Copyright 2005 by Koos Nolst Trenite - human rights philosopher
 and poet
This is 'learnware' - it may not be altered, and it is free for
 anyone who learns from it, and (even if he can not learn from it)
 who passes it on unaltered, and with this message included,
 to others who might be able to learn from it.
None of my writings may be used, ever, to support any political
 or religious or scientific agenda, but only to educate, and to
 encourage people to judge un-dominated and for themselves,
 about any organizations or individuals.
Send free-of-Envy and free-of-Hate, Beautiful e-mails to:
 PlatoWorld at Lycos.com
  (address unreadable for Internet robots
   - replace ' at ' with the '@' symbol)


author: sam

subject:
Re: The "Become Perfect"-Mind-Control of Hinduism, Buddhism and New-Age
 Cults - {HRI 20050514-V3.1} (Version 3.1 on 14 June 2005)

text:
Koos Nolst Trenite napisał(a):

This is the answer:

http://jan-pajak.com/antichrist.htm

http://jan-pajak.com/wtc.htm
http://www.jan-pajak.com/shuttle.htm
http://jan-pajak.com/day26.htm
http://jan-pajak.com/aliens.htm


author: The Psychedelic Pope

subject: Re: The "Become Perfect"-Mind-Control of Hinduism, Buddhism and New-Age Cults - {HRI 20050514-V3.1} (Version 3.1 on 14 June 2005)

text:
Thanks Koos - but I already knew all that.
:) I AM therefore I DO!

Do you?

I need to fetch my Ruffles potato chips
Is there really an e at end of potato or
was it just a political illusion?


author: Bluefire

text:
Albert Wagner schrieb:
Kudzu frightened Quail.  I don't know what to think about you.


author: Albert Wagner

text:
The Psychedelic Pope wrote:
I once knew the truth about potato, but became hopelessly
confused by Dan Quail and the Republicans.


text:
Bluefire wrote:
As well he should have been.  Kudzu is frightening.


text:
Bluefire wrote:

True.  But the anxiety is almost as bad as the fear.


author: Clayton E. Cramer

subject: question about chromatic aberration

text:
It appears that chromatic aberration becomes more noticeable as the
magnification goes up, and as the focal ratio shortens.  The traditional
definition of "good enough" for an optical system was that if it was 1/8
wave, it was accurate enough.  Now, this is an oversimplification, because
it seems that contrast of an image rises with more accurate systems, but in
the same way, it strikes me that there might be a point where an achromat of
long enough focal ratio would be effectively apochromatic.  This is the
reason that 17th century astronomers used the great "aerial refractors" of
that period, with extraordinarily long focal ratios to get around not having
even achromats yet.

Traditionally, achromats were made f/15 or even longer.  Even these had
significant chromatic aberration, from what I have read.

All of this is just to get around to the ask the question: how long of a
f/ratio would an achromat need to get the color correction of something like
the Televue Ranger?  It isn't color-free, but I don't find it terribly
objectionable.


author: Tony Flanders

subject: Re: question about chromatic aberration

text:
"Clayton E. Cramer" <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Here is an answer to the question I think you are asking.  It has come
up on s.a.a. many times before.  Note that I am no optical expert;
everything I am saying about glass and the theory of color correction
is second-hand.

Although I have never seen this confirmed for sure, most optical
experts on this group (e.g. TMBack) believe that the Ranger is made
with FK5, a glass that is technically classified as a fluoro-crown,
but which has no advantages over conventional crown glasses as far
as color correction is concerned.  Therefore, the Ranger has the
same degree of color correction as any well-made 70mm F/6.9
achromat.  The ED in Televue's ads is basically advertising hype.

Roland Christen is quick to point out that although there is an
upper limit to the color correction of an achromat at any given
focal length and f-ratio, there is no lower limit!  Not all
achromats perform to the theoretical limit, not by a long shot.

As others have mentioned, for any given design, the false color
is proportional to the aperture divided by the focal ratio.
Put another way, at any given magnification, the false color
depends only on the focal ratio.  But since the maximum useful
magnification is proportional to the aperture, the false color
at the maximum useful magnification is as described above.
So the Ranger, as a 70mm F/6.9, has just about the same amount
of false color at is maximum power (say 140X) as a 100mm F/10
has at its maximum power (say 200X), or a 150mm F/15 at its
maximum power (say 300X).

But false color is not the end of the world.  The giant refractors,
like Yerkes or Lick, have whopping gigantic false color; to make
Yerkes equal the Ranger, it would have to be 1000mm F/100, a
tad longer than a football field!  But people on this group who
have used those scopes report that they yield incredible
planetary views despite extremely strong chromatic aberration.

My own experience, for what it is worth, was the my Ranger
masked down to be a 60mm F/8 had very similar false color
to a department-store 60mm F/11.

    - Tony Flanders


author: andrea tasselli

subject: Re: question about chromatic aberration

text:
"Clayton E. Cramer" <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

I don't know about the Ranger specific color error (I wonder how knows
it apart TeleVue) but to work out a reasonable answer here's how I
would tackle it:

An acromatic refractor (fraunhoefer type) for visual use usually
brings the blue and red wavelength to a common focus while it is
designed to give the best perfomance in the green wavelength. The
difference between that focus (R,B) and the focus in green is about
fixed for "normal" optical glasses commonly used and about 1/2500 of
the focal lenght of the instrument itself (that value could be
somewhat different, but not by much).

The focus tollerance (in length units) is proportional to the maximum
error (say 1/4 of green wavelength, or 550/4 nm) you want to have, the
square of the focal ratio and a numerical constant. I'm not sure about
the exact formula here but off the top of my head is: focus tolerance
= 32*FR^2*max.error (FR is the focal ratio) sort of focal length and
focal ratio one has to put up with to have a colour error equal or
less than the focus tolerance (or equal to that of the Ranger).

Let's assume that the color error weighs equally irrespective of the
visual wavelength (it isn't usually so but for sake of semplicity...).
The optimum focus position lies halfaway between the green focus and
the blue/red one. We therefore ask that the focus tolerance is equal
to half of color error between green and red/blue. Given the formula
above (to be checked !!) one gets the answer it needs:

FR = D/(32*max.error*2*Delta.F), where Delta.F is the distance between
green and red/blue focii and D is the diameter of the refractor.

Hope it helps somehow (barring any mistake from my side).

Andrea T.

My Astronomy Pages at:
Http://www.geocities.com/andreatax/index.htm


author: Frank Bov

subject: Re: question about chromatic aberration

text:
Clayton,
The Ranger's an achromat, and not a terribly good one from the examples I've
seen. Beats the heck out of an f/5 ST80, but is not in the same class as a
good 80mm f/11 achromat. YMMV.
Frank

"Clayton E. Cramer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
like


author: Chuck Taylor

subject: Re: question about chromatic aberration

text:
"Clayton E. Cramer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

like

It depends on the aperture. As the aperture increases, you need to increase
the focal ratio. So getting less color from a small aperture isn't really
that big of an accomplishment. For example, a 3" f/15 looks very nice. A 4"
f/15 shows some definite color. A 5" f/15 shows more color and a 6" f/15 is
very nice, but it is definitely an achromat.

When you get down to those overgrown finders, the color can be reduced while
maintaining a faster focal ratio.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/


author: Dan Chaffee

subject: Re: question about chromatic aberration

text:
On 1 Dec 2003 05:45:26 -0800, [email] (andrea tasselli)
wrote:

The fact that the weighted color error is FAR from equal is why
achromats work as well as they do. Blue and red wavelengths are
only around one tenth the visual weight of yellow-green.
Using your simple example gives the impression that focusing to the
smallest spot size would yield the sharpest focus, which in the case
of virtually any achromat, it wouldn't (although the color would
appear balanced).

Conrady's formula F= D(mm)/8.8*delta lambda , where F is focal ratio,
D is dia. in mm, gives f/35 (!) for a 150mm doublet with .5 lambda
from 550nm and is 'a bit' over the top( pun intended:-)  At f/18 the
lens would have a delta lambda of ~one wave and such an objective is
quite pleasing on the planets in my experience.  My 80mm achromat, at
f/11, has about .7 lambda delta and shows almost no color on anything
in the night sky but Venus and Sirius.
So, the damage done by even as much as 1 wavelength defocus of
blue/red should not be overstated for visual use, with the exception
of Mars and its push towards the red. The  abundance of short, cheap
130mm -150mm achromats have exascerbated the seemingly growing
notion of virtually any achromat  as a dinosaur less worthy of being a
great visual planetary instrument.

Dan C.


subject: Re: question about chromatic aberration

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

Is the original poster any wiser now?

Andrea T.

My Astronomy Pages at:
Http://www.geocities.com/andreatax/index.htm


author: Jon Isaacs

subject: Re: question about chromatic aberration

text:
It might be the abudance of inexpensive medium sized Newtonians that has caused
the longer focal length Achromat to become something of a dinosaur.

jon


subject: Re: question about chromatic aberration

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

Well, "work well" is entirely subjective. I find them both amusing and
useless (I mean the big long ones) or entirely worthless, the short
new ones (except maybe as a finder/binocular). My example is far from
trying to give impressions. It is just a procedure to get some more or
less correct value for the original poster to think upon. One thing
can be color-free but not necessarily free of aberrations, that's
granted.

Entirely subjective statements. If you're old enough you're far less
likely to see blue/violet flashing in achromats. That doesn't make
them a nm more correct than they are.

In fact they are not (great visual planetary instruments) nor they
ever were. The old brass ones are a real treat to look at, however.

Andrea T.


subject: Re: question about chromatic aberration

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

Yes, he knows that his question cannot be given a specific answer apart from
stating an aperture, and that as the aperture increases, the focal _ratio_
must increase and not just the focal length.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/


subject: Re: question about chromatic aberration

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

Partially, but if so, why would fast medium sized achromats be
so popular today, costing more than an inexpensive 150-200mm newtonian?
A 150mm f/15 achromat is no more expensive to make than an f/8 achromat,
just more expensive to mount. And that seems to be its primary drawback.

Dan


subject: Re: question about chromatic aberration

text:
On 2 Dec 2003 09:39:17 -0800, [email] (andrea tasselli)
wrote:

How can the observing experience be free of subjectivity,
regardless of the telescope type? If on a night of good seeing,
an experienced observer with a  150mm f/15 achromat that shows all the
jovian detail that a .95+ strehl 150-200mm newtonian does, where does
objective leave off and subjective begin? Certainly "work well" does
not lapse into meaninglessness in such a context.

I am not *that* old, and with the exception of violet, see unfocused
color quite closely to what optical software predicts.

It doesn't have to. If the unfocused color is not obtrusive enough on
a given object to reduce detection of artifacts, the lens has
performed for the observer as well as it needs to for the limits of
its  aperture and what the seeing will allow.

Surely you realize this is as subjective as anything I have stated...

Dan


subject: Re: question about chromatic aberration

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

All right, yet it doesn't answer his question.

Andrea T.

My Astronomy Pages at:
Http://www.geocities.com/andreatax/index.htm


subject: Re: question about chromatic aberration

text:
I am not quite sure.  I owned a 120mm F8.3 Orion Skysomethingorother refractor
for a year or two.  It gave decent views, quite good on double stars.  And
there was no problem with cool down or collimation (once I fixed the diagonal
that is.)

So the simplicity and ease of use may be a big factor.

But I sold it because the views IMHO just did not compare to my Orion 8 inch
DOB, especially on Saturn and Jupiter.   Of course the DSOs were much better in
the Newt though I did get one good night of seeing the mountains and got some
great views my favorite, the Swan Nebula.

My guess is they are popular because they do a reasonable job and outside
gettng the focuser to work properly they are nice to use.

A 150 mm F15 scope will be about 90 inches long, about 8 feet.  While this
really does take a substantial mount, it also takes a substantial vehicle to
move the thing.  SInce these days, people are more moblie and light pollution
is getting more serious by the day, portability is a big factor in choosing a
scope.

It seems to me that one of the places where Orion and Celestron along with
Synta have been wise is in designing scopes which are easily transported.  That
6 inch F8 refractor has a 48 inch OTA length which just happens to fit nicely
across the back seat of even a small car and the trunk of most cars.

Add the mount required to handle a 90 inch OTA and it is pretty easy to see why
the 6 inch F8 is a popular scope.

jon


author: William Horatio Bates

subject: Criticize the Bates Method

text:
Please, criticize the Bates Method.

http://www.iblindness.org/forum/index.php/board,6.0.html


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Criticize the Bates Method

text:
Dear Kaze,

Subject:  Do second-opinion PREVENTIVE methods work?

I believe in giving a man (or ophthamologist) the conditions
he needs to reproduce his success.

Whether you believe PREVENTIVE methods would
work, or not work is not the issue.

The point is that Bates never got a second-chance
to verify vision-clearing from 20/70 to normal.

That process seems to be blocked by the "powers
that be", and the nature of our discussions are
to understand that problem.

I think the posts here by some very dense people
here proves my point.

But if the want to continue to shoot themselves in
their foot -- that is OK with me.

Just one man's opinion.

Otis

On May 16, 6:16 am, "Kazekage via MedKB.com" <u34144@uwe> wrote:


author: Neil Brooks

subject: Re: Criticize the Bates Method

text:
On May 16, 10:02 am, "[email]" <[email]> wrote:

How about answering a couple of simple, relevant, logical questions,
Otis?

  http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

That's really the issue ... more than anything else: why you can't
defend your theory.

Yup.  That's it in a nutshell.


subject: Re: Criticize the Bates Method

text:
On May 16, 6:16 am, "Kazekage via MedKB.com" <u34144@uwe> wrote:

the poster named William Horatio Bates is Kazekage.  we know that
although otis seems a little confused about it.

Otis, the central fixation link looks like an interesting early
medical publication.  I don't know why the Bates method is not taken
seriously and is not considered "proven" based upon the weight of that
single old publication.  Perhaps you should work to have NEI validate
its value.  Or perhaps you should contact the I See Clearly company in
Iowa and see if they will help you since they have a financial
interest.

Perhaps the reason no one believes it is because of the MASS of people
in whom it fails miserablty.  they just don't post anymore in your
internet website and try something else but in reality the majority of
people who try it fail.  Just check out the "good track record" at I
See Clearly.

Now go do something useful and leave here.  Take your little troll
friend Kaze with you.


author: Scott Seidman

subject: Re: Criticize the Bates Method

text:
William Horatio Bates <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

Why?  A quick google search in the archives does a fine job addressing this
over about 6 or 7 years.  It really isn't necessary to rehash.


author: retinula

subject: Re: Criticize the Bates Method

text:
On May 15, 2:36 pm, William Horatio Bates <[email]>
wrote:

how are things in norway kazekage?  how come you post under different
screen names?

in the future, choose names and e-mail addresses that are not so
obviously the same ([email]).

you criticized neil brooks for attacking otis but now you try to spurn
some disagreements yourself. why don't you just look up the history of
the discussions about bates in this NG and in the iblindness forum
that you also post in.  everything is said there.  and the bates
people haven't learned anything new.  its the same old unproven BS.


subject: Re: Criticize the Bates Method

text:
Please, voice your arguments on i-blindness.

They will be willing to have completely sensible debates.

Many new people have registered on i-blindness, with completely new
ideas - not the "same old unproven BS".

Please, register yourself on the i-blindness forum.

Start a new topic - whatever criticisms you have - post them.

Give them a chance to prove the validity of what they have chosen to
follow.

That is all I ask.


author: spammer

subject: Re: Criticize the Bates Method

text:
On May 15, 1:50 pm, William Horatio Bates <[email]>
wrote:

Okay, I'll bite. The only thing that works about the bates method is
that a fool and his money...............................


subject: Re: Criticize the Bates Method

text:
spammer,

It would be so much appreciated if you were to start a new topic in
the 'critics and skeptics' forum, the link provided.

You say "The only thing that works about the bates method is that a
fool and his money.......". Tell them, debate with them.

By this means, the people at i-blindness will be likely to view your
post, and try to prove you wrong, and justify their point.

Kind regards,

-W.H. B


subject: Re: Criticize the Bates Method

text:
On May 15, 3:30 pm, William Horatio Bates <[email]>
wrote:

That would be a huge waste of time. The bates method has been debunked
all over the place, but if people still want to piss their money away
on it, so be it. That's why there are "psychics, tarot readers etc."
all over the place because there are idiots out there supporting them.


subject: Re: Criticize the Bates Method

text:
Dear William Bates,

Subject:  Success in 1913.  Why not repeat this
success in 2013?

Here is the statement about your vision-clearing, almost
100 years ago.

http://central-fixation.com/batesmed/myopiaprevention.htm

That seems to be the ONLY success of yours.

It seems that the nay-sayers, the NEGATIVE people,
the persons who do not understand scientific truth
concerning the dynamic behavior of the fundamental
eye CONTROL this situation -- adversely.

Why can't we get "organized" and repeat this
success in the year 2013?

What is wrong with us. It should not
be that difficult, if you did it in
1913.

If this success can NOT be repeated, (given REASONABLE
second-opinion people) then
let us fact the fact that the Bates
method does not work.

But there has been too many people defending the
quick-fix method, and too few people intelligently
understanding these preventive methods.

Must we continue with 88 percent myopic entering
universities.

And further, 95 percent myopic with respect
to medical students?  This seems a profoundly
degenerative process.

Otis

On May 15, 3:30 pm, William Horatio Bates <[email]>
wrote:


author: Kazekage via MedKB.com

subject: Re: Criticize the Bates Method

text:
"What is wrong with us. It should not
be that difficult, if you did it in
1913. "

Lol! Otis, that's just his nickname, I don't think he's actually 'William
Horatio Bates' from 1913!!

=D=D=P

Loooooloololollol!!!!


author: Sunburned Surveyor

subject: An introduction to the list...

text:
I am a Land Surveyor that is in the process of learning some basic
statistics. I am also learning about analyzing and adjusting data with
the least squares method. I am having a difficult time finding a lot of
material on this topic. I do have one textbook on the subject, but it
can be difficult to understand.

Is this an appropriate list to ask some questions about the adjustment
of measurement data using least squares and about other topics in
numerical analysis?

If those type of questions are not welcome here, could you point me to
a list where they might be welcome?

I can offer in return my limited knowledge of topics like measurement
theory, geodesy, astronomy, programming, maps, GIS, and other related
topics as they might apply to numerical analysis.

Thanks,

The Sunburned Surveyor


author: Jentje Goslinga

subject: Re: An introduction to the list...

text:
Sunburned Surveyor wrote:

Since noone seems to be welcoming you, the SUNBURNED
SURVEYOR, to this newsgroup, I will do so! Welcome to the
newsgroup! (it is not a list).

Least Squares is right on topic here albeit somewhat basic.
We usually distinguish between linear least squares and
approximations with those unsavory transcendental functions
which engineers like so much.
And we also like approximations with orthogonal polynomials.

I have not seen much discussion about GIS or geodesy or
mapping projections, so maybe you could enlighten us there.

Welcome to the group!

THE PALE INDOORS MATHEMATICIAN


subject: Re: An introduction to the list...

text:
Jentje,

Thank you for the welcome! I am somewhat frightened by your reference
to Least Squares as "somewhat basic". I must admit is the most
difficult mathematical subject I've had to tackle as a Land Surveyor.
On a positive note, I should get lots of help if it is an easy subject
for this group!

I'm not sure how my knowledge of surveying subjects might be helpful,
but I imagine some topics on this group might deal with analysis of
numerical data that has a spatial component, and in that area I might
be able to assist. :]

I will post my first couple of least squares questions in a bit.

Thanks,

The Sunburned Surveyor

P.S. - You have a very unique name. Would you mind telling me what
culture it comes from? I haven't seen anything like it before. Perhaps
it is from India or another South Asian country?

Jentje Goslinga wrote:


author: Gordon Sande

subject: Re: An introduction to the list...

text:
On 2006-03-18 23:25:35 -0400, Jentje Goslinga <[email]> said:

I had always heard that one of the motivations behind large sparse least
squares problems was geodesy. At least it makes a rather good urban legend.

One of the better sources on such problems is the book by Ake Bjorck from
SIAM.


subject: Re: An introduction to the list...

text:
[email] wrote:

I apologize and must admit that not all least squares is that
basic and Linear Least Squares may lead to the SVD.
I will say no more for fear that someone is going to correct me!
There is a lot of intellect and knowledge in this newsgroup and
you will find people much more qualified than me to answer your
questions!

One of the subjects which comes up in this group once in a while is
so called scattered data interpolation which tries to fit a function
to data which is not on a regular grid; this may be of interest to
you.
The subject of mapping projections may also be on topic in this
newsgroup although you may be aware that there also is a newsgroup
comp.infosystems.gis

This is not of any interest to this newsgroup but I have a
Frysk (Frisian) name; we are a people surviving in what is now
the northern part of The Netherlands who speak a language which
is very similar to but somewhat older than Old English, however
a separate branch according to the linguists.

Good luck,

Jen


author: Piovere

subject: Pasternack Enterprises garage operation still operating!

text:
Incompetently made parts at ridiculously high prices -- why would anyone

want their catalogs?

I don't and have told them so over many years but I've now received
by mail 3 of their latest  catalog..  Don't get suckered in and let
them have your mailing address.


author: Joe lane

subject: Re: Pasternack Enterprises garage operation still operating!

text:
"Piovere" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
I have never purchased anything from them but they have
some very unique items that would be very difficult to obtain
elsewhere.  They are not forcing you to buy anything or even
open the catalog. If you don't want it just toss it in file 13.
---Joe---


author: Ed Price

text:
I have been buying from Pasternack for over 5 years. No, I wouldn't use
their stuff in an aerospace or military environment. But I have never
received any "incompetent" material from them. On the contrary, I use their
inter-series coax adapters and other coax accessories extensively, and I've
received excellent value and delivery for the prices I've paid.

There's no reason for you to malign a company just because they send you
unsolicited catalogs. Throw the catalogs away and shut up.

Ed

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


author: Joe Leikhim

text:
I have had good service from them. They are pricey, and I build my own cables
for home use, But when I need cables at work, I order them up from Pasternack
because it is not cost effective to make them myself and their quality is far
better than I will get having a part timer build them.

They could economize on the mailings however!

Ed Price wrote:


author: Ned Simmons

text:
In article <[email]>, [email]
says...

I'll tell you one thing, he's not building a playhouse for the
children...


author: Immortalista

subject: Re: Philosophy vs. Psychiatry

text:
On Dec 11, 1:37 am, C3 <[email]> wrote:

The Story of Psychology
Written by Morton Hunt
http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780307568304&view=printexcerpt
http://www.amazon.com/Story-Psychology-Morton-Hunt/dp/0385471491

Excerpt

ONE - The Conjecturers

The Glory That Was Greece

“In all history,” the philosopher Bertrand Russell has said, “nothing
is so surprising or so difficult to account for as the sudden rise of
civilization in Greece.”

Until the sixth century b.c., the Greeks borrowed much of their
culture from Egypt, Mesopotamia, and neighboring countries, but from
the sixth to the fourth centuries they generated a stupendous body of
new and distinctive cultural materials. Among other things, they
created sophisticated new forms of literature, art, and architecture,
wrote the first real histories (as opposed to mere annals), invented
mathematics and science, developed schools and gymnasiums, and
originated democratic government. Much of subsequent Western culture
has been the lineal descendant of theirs; in particular, much of
philosophy and science during the past twenty-five hundred years has
been the outgrowth of the Greek philosophers’ attempts to understand
the nature of the world. Above all, the story of psychology is the
narrative of a continuing effort to answer the questions they first
asked about the human mind.

It is mystifying that the Greek philosophers so suddenly began to
theorize about human mental processes in psychological, or at least
quasi-psychological, terms. For while the 150 or so Greek city-states
around the Mediterranean had noble temples, elegant statues and
fountains, and bustling marketplaces, living conditions in them were
in many respects primitive and not, one would suppose, conducive to
subtle psychological inquiry.

Few people could read or write; those who could had to scratch
laboriously on wax tablets or, for permanent records, on strips of
papyrus or parchment twenty to thirty feet long wrapped around a
stick. Books—actually, hand-copied scrolls—were costly, rare, and
awkward to use.

The Greeks, possessing neither clocks nor watches, had but a
rudimentary sense of time. Sundials offered only approximations, were
not transportable, and were of no help in cloudy weather; the water
clocks used to limit oratory in court were merely bowls filled with
water that emptied through a hole in about six minutes.

Lighting, such as it was, was provided by flickering oil lamps. A few
of the well-to-do had bathrooms with running water, but most people,
lacking water to wash with, cleansed themselves by rubbing their
bodies with oil and then scraping it off with a crescent-shaped stick.
(Fortunately, some three hundred days a year were sunny, and Athenians
lived out of doors most of the time.) Few city streets were paved;
most were dirt roads, dusty in dry weather and muddy in wet. Transport
consisted of pack mules or springless, bone-bruising horse- drawn
wagons. News was sometimes conveyed by fire beacons or carrier
pigeons, but most often by human runners.

Illustrious Athens, the center of Greek culture, could not feed
itself; the surrounding plains had poor soil, the hills and mountains
were stony and infertile. The Athenians obtained much of their food
through maritime commerce and conquest. (Athens established a number
of colonies, and at times dominated the Aegean, receiving tribute from
other city-states.) But while their ships had sails, the Athenians
knew only how to rig them to be driven by a following wind; to proceed
crosswind or into the wind or in a calm, they forced slaves to strain
hour after hour at banks of oars, driving the ships at most eight
miles per hour. The armies thus borne to far shores to advance
Athenian interests fought much like their primitive ancestors, with
spears, swords, and bows and arrows.

Slaves also provided most of the power in Greek workshops and silver
mines; human muscles, feeble as they are compared to modern machinery,
were, aside from beasts of burden, the only source of kinetic energy.
Slavery was, in fact, the economic foundation of the Greek city-
states; men, women, and children captured abroad by Greek armies made
up much of the population of many cities. Even in democratic Athens
and the neighboring associated towns of Attica, at least 115,000 of
the 315,000 inhabitants were slaves. Of the 200,000 free Athenians
only the forty-three thousand men who had been born to two Athenian
parents possessed all civil rights, including the right to vote.

All in all, it was not a way of life in which one would expect
reflective and searching philosophy, or its subdiscipline, psychology,
to flourish.

What, then, accounts for the Greeks’ astonishing intellectual
accomplishments, and for those of the Athenians in particular? Some
have half-seriously suggested the climate; Cicero said that Athens’
clear air contributed to the keenness of the Attic mind. Certain
present-day analysts have hypothesized that the Athenians’ living
outdoors much of the time, in constant conversation with one another,
induced questioning and thinking. Others have argued that commerce and
conquest, bringing Athenians and other Greeks into contact with many
other cultures, made them curious about the origin of human
differences. Still others have said that the mix of cultural
influences in the Greek city-states gave Greek culture a kind of
hybrid vigor. Finally, some have pragmatically suggested that when
civilization had developed to the point where day-to-day survival did
not take up every hour of the day, human beings for the first time had
leisure in which to theorize about their motives and thoughts, and
those of other people.

None of these explanations is really satisfactory, although perhaps
all of them taken together, along with still others, are. Athens
reached the zenith of its greatness, its Golden Age (480 to 399),
after it and its allies defeated the Persians. Victory, wealth, and
the need to rebuild the temples on the Acropolis that the Persian
leader Xerxes had burned, in addition to the favorable influences
mentioned above, may have produced a kind of cultural critical mass
and an explosion of creativity.

The Forerunners

Along with their many other speculations, a number of the Greek
philosophers of the sixth and early fifth centuries began proposing
naturalistic explanations of human mental processes; these hypotheses
and their derivatives have been at the core of Western psychology ever
since.

What kinds of persons were they? What caused or at least enabled them
to think about human cognition in this radically new fashion? We know
their names—Thales, Alcmaeon, Empedocles, Anaxogoras, Hippocrates,
Democritus, and others—but about many of them we know little else;
about the others what we know consists largely of hagiography and
legend.

We read, for instance, that Thales of Miletus (624–546), first of the
philosophers, was an absentminded dreamer who, studying the nighttime
heavens, could be so absorbed in glorious thoughts as to tumble
ingloriously into a ditch. We read, too, that he paid no heed to money
until, tired of being mocked for his poverty, he used his astrological
expertise one winter to foretell a bumper crop of olives, cheaply
leased all the oil presses in the area, and later, at harvest time,
charged top prices for their use.

Gossipy chroniclers tell us that Empedocles (500?–430), of Acragas in
southern Sicily, had such vast scientific knowledge that he could
control the winds and once brought back to life a woman who had been
dead for thirty days. Believing himself a god, in his old age he
leaped into Etna in order to die without leaving a human trace; as
some later poetaster jested, “Great Empedocles, that ardent soul /
Leaped into Etna, and was roasted whole.” But Etna vomited his brazen
slippers back onto the rim of the crater and thereby proclaimed him
mortal.

Such details hardly help us fathom the psychophilosophers, if we may
so call them. Nor did any of them set down an account—at least, none
exists—of how or why they became interested in the workings of the
mind. We can only suppose that in the dawn of philosophy, when
thoughtful men began to ask all sorts of searching questions about the
nature of the world and of humankind, it was natural that they would
also ask how their own thoughts about such things arose and where
their ideas came from.

One or two did actual research that touched on the physical equipment
involved in psychological processes. Alcmaeon (fl. 520), a physician
of Croton in southern Italy, performed dissections on animals
(dissecting the human body was taboo) and discovered the optic nerve,
connecting the eye to the brain. Most, however, were neither hands-on
investigators nor experimentalists but men of leisure, who, starting
with self-evident truths and their own observations of everyday
phenomena, sought to deduce the nature of the world and of the mind.

The psychophilosophers most often carried on their reasoning while
strolling or sitting with their students in the marketplaces of their
cities or courtyards of their academies, endlessly debating the
questions that intrigued them. And probably, like Thales gazing at the
stars, they also spent periods alone in deep meditation. But little
remains of the fruits of their labors; nearly all copies of their
writings were lost or destroyed. Most of what we know of their
thinking comes from brief citations in the works of later writers. Yet
even these bits and pieces indicate that they asked a number of the
major questions—to which they offered some sensible and some
outlandish answers—that have concerned psychologists ever since.

We can surmise from the few obscure and tantalizing allusions by later
writers to the philosophers’ ideas that among the questions they asked
themselves concerning nous (which they variously identified as soul,
mind, or both) were what its nature is (what it is made of), and how
so seemingly intangible an entity could be connected to and influence
the body.

Thales pondered these matters, although a single sentence in
Aristotle’s De Anima (On the Soul) is the only surviving record of
those thoughts: “Judging from the anecdotes related of him [Thales],
he conceived soul as a cause of motion, if it be true that he affirmed
the lodestone to possess soul because it moves iron.” Little as this
is to go on, it indicates that Thales considered soul or mind the
source of human behavior and its mode of action a kind of physical
force inherent in it, a view radically unlike the earlier Greek belief
that human behavior was directed by supernatural forces.

Within a century, some philosophers and the physician Alcmaeon
suggested that the brain, rather than the heart or other organs, as
earlier believed, was where nous existed and where thinking goes on.
Some thought it was a kind of spirit, others that it was the very
stuff of the brain itself, but in neither case did they say anything
about how memory, reasoning, or other thought processes take place.
They were preoccupied by the more elementary question of whence—since
not from the gods—the mind obtains the raw materials of thought.

Alcmaeon

Their general answer was sense experience. Alcmaeon, for one, said
that the sense organs send perceptions to the brain, where, by means
of thinking, we interpret them and derive ideas from them. What
intrigued him and others was how the perceptions get from the sense
organs to the brain. Unaware of nerve impulses, even though he had
discovered the optic nerve, and believing, on abstract metaphysical
grounds, that air was the vital component of mind, he decided that
perceptions must travel along air channels from the sense organs to
the brain: No matter that he never saw any and that no such channels
exist; reason told him it must be so. (Later Greek anatomists would
refer to the air, pneuma, they thought was in the nerves and brain as
“animal spirits,” and in one form or another this belief would
dominate thinking about the nervous system until the eighteenth
century.) Although Alcmaeon’s theory was wholly incorrect, his
emphasis on perception as the source of knowledge was the beginning of
epistemology—the study of how we acquire knowledge—and laid the ground
for a debate about that topic that has gone on ever since.

Protagoras

Alcmaeon’s ideas were borne around the far-flung Greek cities by
travelers; soon, philosophers in many places were devising their own
explanations of how perception takes place, and a number of them
asserted that it was the basis of all knowledge. But some saw the
troubling implications of this view. Protagoras (485–411), best known
of the Sophists (a term that then meant not fallacious reasoners but
“teachers of wisdom”), unsettled his contemporaries and pupils by
pointing out that, since perception was the only source of knowledge,
there could be no absolute truth. His famous apothegm, “Man is the
measure of all things,” meant, he explained, that any given thing is
to me what it appears to me to be, and, if it appears different to
you, is what it seems to you to be. Each perception is true—for each
perceiver. Philosophers were willing to debate the point, but
politicians considered it subversive. When Protagoras, visiting
Athens, tactlessly applied his theory to religion, saying there was no
way for him to know whether the gods exist or not, the outraged
Assembly banished him and burned his writings. He fled and drowned at
sea en route to Sicily.

Democritus

Others carried on that line of inquiry, devising explanations of how
perception takes place and maintaining that, since knowledge is based
on perception, all truths are relative and subjective. The most
sophisticated of such musings were those of Democritus (460–362) of
Abdera, Thrace, the most learned man of his time. Vastly amused by the
follies of humankind, he was known as the “laughing philosopher.” His
main claim to fame, actually, derives not from his psychological
reflections but from his extraordinary guess that all matter is
composed of invisible particles (atoms) of different shapes linked
together in different combinations, a conclusion he came to, without
any experimental evidence, by sheer reasoning. Unlike Alcmaeon’s air
channels, this theory would eventually be proven absolutely correct.


author: Day Brown

subject: Re: Philosophy vs. Psychiatry

text:
As to why.
We have Sappho's torrid love poems to her students at her school on the
  isle of Lesbos. And we know, that 19, the girls graduated returned to
Athens, and married.

And who did they marry?
Only the most notorious boy fuckers in all history.

And what did all this depravity produce?
Only the most outstanding generations of genius in all history.

But another point to consider is that Greek city states were a maritime
machiavellian setup where any talent could vote with his ass on a boat
to whatever community he thot had a lower cost of management. Greek
leaders respected the freedom of speech because they had no choice.

We have the instructions of Solon, while burning the mortgages in the
square, that if Athenians wanted to be free men, they should not permit
slavery, for then the land would be worked by slaves and consolidated
into estates rather than each of them owning some portion of a deme.

And we have the nagging of Xanthippus, wanting Socrates to quit with the
bullshitting in the agora and go out to meet his responsibilities doing
his fair share of the farm work. Now, we also know how exercise raises
the blood flow and washes toxins out of the brain to clarify thinking. I
myself, never work in the garden without some solution coming to mind
while I am out there.

Then too, we now know 'organic' veggies provide a wide variety of trace
minerals neurotransmitters use when laying down new neural pathways
during learning. But as the Greeks became more affluent, less active,
and eating a richer, but less diverse diet, the innovation rate slowed.

Moreover, we have the Spartan example of the only eugenics program in
all history that actually worked. Lycurgus, at the Pythia's instruction,
told the Spartans, that if they wanted the biggest, fastest, smartest,
and strongest warriors to defend the city, they needed the biggest,
fastest, smartest, and strongest... women to bear them. Nobody else put
a eugenics program in the hands of women. Lycurgus shipped the cute sexy
bimbos off to the pleasure of the Helots. Who remained slaves for
centuries.

The downside of the Greek military success was the import of sexy slave
women- who were not smart enuf to stay out of sight when the Hoplites
showed up. Or who saw some improvement in their condition in the hands
of a Greek, which if they knew anything of Greek culture up to that
time, they knew of the rights and education, such as Sappho provided for
women. It aint hard to see the misogyny increase as the innovation level
of Greek culture declined. As it also did in Rome.

It was the egoism of the warrior elite that thot of the womb as only the
room in which their seed grew, and their habit to ship challenging smart
girls off to nunneries or whatever.

Psychiatry, psychology, and philosophy have all been challenged by DNA
data coming in that explains how men and communities develop, or fail
to, depending on the markers related to morality. Markers indicate the
innate levels of hormones that affect behavior like impulsiveness,
aggression, patience, and even honesty. Neurology is nailing down the
structures of the mind that relate to the innate level of self control,
which has always been a part of morality, philosophy, and psychology;
and since we are dealing with STRUCTURE here, we know it is genetic.

Aristotle was right. The Semites are chaloric while the Aryans are more
phlegmatic. It takes draconian control to organize those whose passions
are more easily inflamed, which is what Semite history has been. He thot
the sun was the cause. Not egzactly. But melanin is on the same strand
of DNA as the hormones which affect behavior like adrenalin, seratonin,
and dopamine. And black melanin is adaptive in hot climates.

But there is a red form also. Jared Diamond, looking at the Greenland
Norse graves was stuck by the high rate of fractures in the bones. He
also saw the inegality- how the chief had 50 cows, but the commoners had
only one, and reported the letters to the Bishop from clerics not
wanting to be sent to such an unruly congregation.

But we are looking at the descendants of Eric the RED, who was kicked
out of Scandinavia and then Iceland because of his violence. Nobody
calls me racist when I discuss red melanin, only black. But draconian
control takes more careful management, which is why the elites are so
much richer.

One solution, which is ongoing, is to replace alpha male egotistical
leadership with women whose hormone profile is more manageable and less
impulsively oppressive. Not that the alpha male shrink has not provided
valuable service. Sometimes it takes an authority figure with tough love
to rattle a neurotic out of denial. The Shrinks also are more familiar
with the range of severe psychopathology; but their insights are not
worth much for the more normal range of relationship problems functional
people have. Which in part is due to their own academic group think.


author: John Stafford

subject: Re: Philosophy vs. Psychiatry

text:
I might read your posts if you were not a racist.

Out yourself.

Now!


author: Weatherlawyer

subject: Carlsberg Ridge

text:
Update time = Wed Jan 9 11:34:10 UTC 2013

2013/01/09 Carlsberg Ridge

4.9  	 10:51:30 	  -1.953 	  67.960
4.6  	 10:35:52 	  -1.935 	  67.946
4.7  	 10:27:47 	  -1.912 	  67.854
4.7  	 10:08:45 	  -1.915 	  67.740
4.7  	 09:40:52 	  -1.851 	  67.906
4.7  	 09:02:39 	  -1.952 	  67.857

4.8  	 06:50:39 	  -1.915 	  68.001
4.9  	 06:21:57 	  -1.928 	  68.031
5.0  	 05:27:05 	  -1.937 	  68.031
4.9  	 04:46:30 	  -1.860 	  67.884

2013/01/08

4.6  	 23:42:58 	  -2.258 	  68.030
4.8  	 23:38:43 	  -2.063 	  67.984
4.7  	 23:31:49 	  -1.977 	  68.012

I wonder how much energy it took to do that.


subject: Re: Carlsberg Ridge

text:
On Jan 9, 12:21 pm, Weatherlawyer <[email]> wrote:

Update time = Sat Jan 12 9:12:14 UTC 2013

3	 VIRGIN ISLANDS REGION
3	 VIRGIN ISLANDS REGION
3	 VIRGIN ISLANDS REGION
3.2	 VIRGIN ISLANDS REGION
3.4	 VIRGIN ISLANDS REGION
2.9	 VIRGIN ISLANDS REGION
3.9	 VIRGIN ISLANDS REGION

From: 6 December Last Quarter @ 15:32

"This signal series went:
Virgin Islands, California, Hawaii and Japan I must try to remember
that."

Because:
2012/12/10 16:53
7.1 M. 6.5 S. 129.8 E. BANDA SEA.


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Carlsberg Ridge

text:
On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:04:15 PM UTC-5, [email] wrote:

......a 12 not 13, excuse


subject: Re: Carlsberg Ridge

text:
USGS does not show a 7.1

what coordinate system is e and s ?

current flow shows a latitude fault bringing even pressure over the Pacific to a 3rd (?) greater San Andreas slippage.


subject: Re: Carlsberg Ridge

text:
On Jan 12, 9:24 am, Weatherlawyer <[email]> wrote:

Not the same sequence by a long shot.

Oddly the last quake on the M5.0+ list before the 5.0 M on 2013/01/18
@ 04:08 (CENTRAL MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE) was the 5.5 M on 2013/01/16 at
ALAMAGAN REG., NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS at 02:38.

But we did have one at the ISLAND OF HAWAII (Whahey aye!)
2.7 M on the 16th @ 03:15 and
2.7 M on the 15th @ 23:14

Not that impressive and I would have thought at least a couple or
three reasonable consecutive in the nature of those carlsberg Ridge
ones was in order.


author: Algebra

subject: Focusing an LED to produce a 85um spot

text:
I have an application that requires an 85um spot focused onto film. I would
prefer to use an LED for the light source due to the ease of varying the
intensity. I read a message here that suggested using a ball lens. Is there
a "simple" way to accomplish this? I have considered using a LASER Diode,
however, it looks like this could get expensive quickly. Also, I know
nothing about LASER Diodes and how to focus them or vary the power. I'm in
the proof of concept phase and would like to keep this as simple as I can.

Any and all comments are appreciated.

Scott
[email]


subject: Re: Focusing an LED to produce a 85um spot

text:
I wanted to thank each of you again for the information. I have lots of
things to try now.

Here is what I currently have going. I am using a fiber optic cable to give
reduce the diameter of the light source to 1mm. I hae this mounted into a
tube at one end and at the other end I have an objective. I don't know the
power of the objective since it is not labled ( I wend to a local surplus
store and dug through a box of lenses). The spot diameter that it makes is
about 2x what I wanted, however, it is good enough for this proof of concept
phase.

Thank you again for the ideas

Scott

"Algebra" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
would
there


author: Steve J. Noll

text:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 23:38:57 -0500, "Algebra" <[email]> wrote:

Here is a way to do it that can give you good working distance and
depth of focus.  Make an aperture - a thin piece of metal or foil -
drill or poke a small hole through it (you can get drills or end mills
a few mils in diameter from McMaster-Carr.)  Or - you can buy ready
made "pinholes".  Place this aperture in place of the microscope
eyepiece in an old-style one-tube  microscope tube - I think they're
70 or 80mm long.  The LED is pointed down onto the
hole in the aperture.  The microscope objective will effectively
reduce the diameter of the apertured light by it's power.  If you use
a 2X objective you can start with a 0.006" aperture to get a spot
about 85um.  With a long working distance simple objective you should
get a few inches of working distance.  You don't need an achromat.
There are probably simpler ways if you don't need a nice working
distance and depth of focus - like pressing a LED-coupled fiber or
aperture directly on the film.

Steve J. Noll | Ventura California | [email]
                    | The Used High-Tech Equipment Dealer Directory
                    | http://www.big-list.com
                    | The Peltier Device Information Site:
                    | http://www.peltier-info.com


text:
I just wanted to thank you for the great responses.

I really don't know anything about optics and did not know how to approach
this. Yes, intensity is an issue. I need to keep the exposures at about 1ms
for overall performance ( I have to make 7,200,000 spots.)  I have a laser
pointer that I have experimented with a little bit. I also have the lens
from a CD player. I don't know for sure but it seems to have  a focal length
of around 4-8mm. From what I've read, the emissions from a diode laser must
be expanded, collimated and then focused. Can a laser beam be focused with a
simple double Plano lens? Also, I have read that diode lasers can be very
easily fried by spikes from a power supply. And, that overcurrent will kill
them as well.

Thank you again for the replies.

Scott

"Algebra" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
would
there


author: Bob May

text:
The is a  simple geometric lens raytracing problem.  The ball lens is a good
approach as the focal length is nice and short thus producing a very small
spot.
Lets say that you start with a LED with a source that is .8mm (800 um in
diameter) and you want to reduce that by 10.  This can be approximately done
with a 1" lens focusing the light from a distance.
The thing here is to trace the angleular diameters of the source and
destination through the multiplier of the lens and you shoujld get there or
very close.