twitter: rec.crafts.metalworking - 25 new messages in 9 topics

rec.crafts.metalworking
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

rec.crafts.metalworking@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT What's your take? OT
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/90f2ae9b8081ec29?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 11:41 am
From: "Ed Huntress"

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D418C0D41E5lloydspmindspringcom@216.168.3.70...
> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> fired this volley in
> news:4ba4dfc2$0$21783$607ed4bc@cv.net:
>
>>
>> It really isn't worth getting worked up about. It's an attempt to keep
>> underhanded amendments from defeating the function of the legislation
>> by the back door. It's been done before.
>>
>>
>
> You didn't quite word that right, Ed. It's an UNDERHANDED attempt to keep
> amendments from the defeating the function...
>
> LLoyd

Nope, I had it right, Lloyd. If you do some checking, you'll see that this
phrasing has been used for similar purposes in the past.

The "amendments" we're talking about are irrelevant, and sneaky, snipes
taken at the legislation by adding an amendment to an unrelated bill. It's
been decades since I studied this stuff in college but I remember one issue
that was related to it. After the Civil Rights Act was passed, some southern
legislators tried to sneak an amendment into a military funding bill that
would have gutted the CRA. Who can vote against a military funding bill in
the middle of a war?

That kind of sneakiness is exactly what these provisions are intended to
prevent. And it's really a moderate, and weak protection. If Congress wants
to be forthright and vote specifically about provisions of this bill at some
time in the future, or even completely overturn it, they can do so.

Of course, people opposed to the bill are going to scream bloody murder.
Some of their bag of tricks have become complicated, because they'd have to
come out in the open with their opposition. Of course, they're probably
among those who have used these procedural methods in the past, on other
issues. They're counting on us not noticing There's a LOT of that going on
with the health care bill.

--
Ed Huntress

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 2:12 pm
From: "dcaster@krl.org"

On Mar 20, 12:43 am, cavelamb <cavel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> dcas...@krl.org wrote:
>
> > If that is the case, why did they bother to put the words in the bill?
>
> > Dan
>
> The language to which opponents refer, and which the Washington Examiner
> explicitly cited, changes the rules of each House to limit Congress' ability to
> change the recommendations of the Board.
>

I thought that changing the rules of the House required a super
majority.

Dan

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wingers keep lying !!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/3e88a3bd89afa214?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 11:40 am
From: Cliff

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:23:38 -0700, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote:

>>I'm wondering why one is NOT the fault of the teased, while society says
>>the other is? It seems to all be in your head. No facts.
>
>Because the dog does not think, it reacts.

Unlike wingers dogs can solve problems.

>You don't get that do you?
--
Cliff

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 12:59 pm
From: Beam Me Up Scotty

On 3/20/2010 1:17 PM, Aratzio wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:36:32 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Fire-A-Full-Spred-Of-Photon-Torpedoes@blackhole.NebulaX.com> got
> double secret probation for writing:
>
>> On 3/20/2010 12:06 PM, Aratzio wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:21:12 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty
>>> <Then-Fire-A-Full-Spred-Of-Photon-Torpedoes@blackhole.NebulaX.com> got
>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>
>>>> On 3/19/2010 11:21 PM, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:09:31 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>>> <Then-Fire-A-Full-Spred-Of-Photon-Torpedoes@blackhole.NebulaX.com> got
>>>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/19/2010 10:57 PM, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:49:53 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>>>>> <Then-Fire-A-Full-Spred-Of-Photon-Torpedoes@blackhole.NebulaX.com> got
>>>>>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2010 7:02 PM, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:42:09 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>>>> Zombywoof <fishwings@live.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>>>>>> writing:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:28:31 -0700, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:14:36 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>>>>>> "RogerN" <regor@midwest.net> got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lying was very successful in the last 2 elections for the Democrats. Did
>>>>>>>>>>>> you think liberals were the only liars?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> RogerN
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How many thousands of US Military and 10s of thousands of Iraqi
>>>>>>>>>>> civilians is enough that the people who lied should be held
>>>>>>>>>>> accountable?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've always thought the culpability lies more with the believer of the
>>>>>>>>>> lie then the teller.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you believe the victim is at fault.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suppose women that get raped should have stayed home?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fuck you are stupid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Police will tell you to turn your lights on so the criminals will go
>>>>>>>> down the street and rob someone else with no lights on....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it is the victims fault in your world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it your fault that the person down teh street was robbed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it is still the criminals fault, you idiot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So is it the woman's fault she got raped?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> did she leave the lights off and the door unlocked?
>>>>>
>>>>> Typical, no consistancy or conviction in your beliefs. Just cowardice
>>>>> when forced to confront your own failings.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don't put on a seat belt and you get thrown through the
>>>>>> windshield in an accident, is it your fault?
>>>>>
>>>>> The unassing the vehicle is your fault. The accident and the results
>>>>> from the accident, including the damages associated with unassing the
>>>>> vehicle may leave someone else legally culpable. However any
>>>>> subsequent finding by the courts may be adjusted due to the lack of
>>>>> seat belt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now coward:
>>>>> So is it the woman's fault she got raped?
>>>>>
>>>>> You want to blame the people of the United States of America for
>>>>> believing the President of the United States on matters of national
>>>>> security. How stupid are you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about a little boy that teases a dog and gets bit, is that like a
>>>> girl getting raped, some girl who teases a boy and gets "bit"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was taught that if you teased a dog and got bit, it was more or less
>>>> your own fault.....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This Idea that all women are innocent links back to your Oedipus complex
>>>> and your belief that your mommy is pure and innocent and we all know
>>>> little boys who get bit by a dog are mischievous so it's OK to blame them.
>>>
>>> So define what you consider teasing sufficient that a man is justified
>>> in raping another human being.
>>
>> I don't recall saying that any specific amount is sufficient.
>
> Nice backpedal, coward.
>
>>
>> I'm wondering why one is NOT the fault of the teased, while society says
>> the other is? It seems to all be in your head. No facts.
>
> Because one is a non-sentient animal. I know that is obviously
> something to which you can relate.
>
> That you can't figure that out was totally unsurprising.
>
>>
>>
>>> Really, are you that stupid that you imagine there is ANY
>>> justification for rape?
>>
>>
>> Did I suggest it was Justified, I suggested that there may be reasons
>> that it occurs, not the right or wrong of it. It's you who assign the
>> blame, I point out the probable cause.
>
> "probable cause"
> Please tell me how you differentiate blame and cause in your
> statement.
>
> Specifically if you are not blaming the rape victim then how can they
> be the cause.
>
>
>>
>>
>> You are launched through the windshield because you were wearing no seat
>> belt, it happens because you chose to wear or not wear the things that
>> could in bad situation save you from some harm, you chose to ride rather
>> than walk, I don't lay blame.... but you should except responsibility
>> for your actions.
>
> So, it is the fault of the rape victim as they were "teasing" and
> therefore they should take responsibility for some other supposedly
> sentient being raping them.
>
> That you can equate an accident involving no one but the victim with a
> violent assault perpetrated by one person upon another is at best
> bizarre and quite possibly sociopathic. In your case that might be
> sociopathetic.
>
> Get help.
>
>>
>>
>> Maybe women should have a *Chastity belt law* . You know, to keep them
>> safe like the Seatbelt law....
>
> You would like having the ability to control women.

Like you enjoy forcing me to wear seat-belts? I suppose you want me to
be banned from eating trans fats and salt.

> Rather than blame the victim, as you just did again, supposed *men*
> like you should be castrated as a preventative measure. You know,
> blame the perpatrator.

I have never even been accused of any crime against a woman. You would
be doing what is typical of Liberals.... you would be emasculating a
man without any proof of any crime, typical attitude of a man hating
Lesbian.

>>> I suppose you support the insurgents in the Congo who use rape as a
>>> tool of war?
>>
>> No
>
> Maybe you could blame the people in the Trade Centers for working in a
> icon of US capitalism rather than the terrorists.

It's you who wants to blame people.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 1:29 pm
From: Beam Me Up Scotty

On 3/20/2010 2:25 PM, Cliff wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:21:12 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Fire-A-Full-Spred-Of-Photon-Torpedoes@blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/19/2010 11:21 PM, Aratzio wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:09:31 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty
>>> <Then-Fire-A-Full-Spred-Of-Photon-Torpedoes@blackhole.NebulaX.com> got
>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>
>>>> On 3/19/2010 10:57 PM, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:49:53 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>>> <Then-Fire-A-Full-Spred-Of-Photon-Torpedoes@blackhole.NebulaX.com> got
>>>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/19/2010 7:02 PM, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:42:09 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>> Zombywoof <fishwings@live.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>>>> writing:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:28:31 -0700, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:14:36 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>>>> "RogerN" <regor@midwest.net> got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lying was very successful in the last 2 elections for the Democrats. Did
>>>>>>>>>> you think liberals were the only liars?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> RogerN
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How many thousands of US Military and 10s of thousands of Iraqi
>>>>>>>>> civilians is enough that the people who lied should be held
>>>>>>>>> accountable?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've always thought the culpability lies more with the believer of the
>>>>>>>> lie then the teller.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you believe the victim is at fault.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose women that get raped should have stayed home?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fuck you are stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Police will tell you to turn your lights on so the criminals will go
>>>>>> down the street and rob someone else with no lights on....
>>>>>
>>>>> So it is the victims fault in your world.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it your fault that the person down teh street was robbed?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is still the criminals fault, you idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>> So is it the woman's fault she got raped?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> did she leave the lights off and the door unlocked?
>>>
>>> Typical, no consistancy or conviction in your beliefs. Just cowardice
>>> when forced to confront your own failings.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you don't put on a seat belt and you get thrown through the
>>>> windshield in an accident, is it your fault?
>>>
>>> The unassing the vehicle is your fault. The accident and the results
>>> from the accident, including the damages associated with unassing the
>>> vehicle may leave someone else legally culpable. However any
>>> subsequent finding by the courts may be adjusted due to the lack of
>>> seat belt.
>>>
>>> Now coward:
>>> So is it the woman's fault she got raped?
>>>
>>> You want to blame the people of the United States of America for
>>> believing the President of the United States on matters of national
>>> security. How stupid are you?
>>
>>
>> How about a little boy that teases a dog and gets bit, is that like a
>> girl getting raped, some girl who teases a boy and gets "bit"?
>>
>>
>> I was taught that if you teased a dog and got bit, it was more or less
>> your own fault.....
>>
>>
>> This Idea that all women are innocent links back to your Oedipus complex
>> and your belief that your mommy is pure and innocent and we all know
>> little boys who get bit by a dog are mischievous so it's OK to blame them.
>
> So rape is fine with you.
> Move to Alaska.
Your head is already occupying your hole so you are secure.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: DIY surge protection...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/fa560b93f2504a9b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 11:50 am
From: cavelamb

pdrahn@coinet.com wrote:
>

You talkin' to ME, kid???

> You were probably still a baby when the whole thing about power
> protection got started. There was a HUGE argument between marketing
> people and engineers relating to "UPS". Marketing called them
> uninterruptable power sources (UPS) and engineers demanded they be
> called Stand-By power sources(SPS). All the things you buy today are
> really stand-by power sources. They have a real mechanical relay that
> switches from the power line to battery source. A real UPS will cost
> many hundreds to many thousands of dollars. They continually supply
> power from batteries and the AC just keeps the batteries charged. An
> electronic circuit keeps the internally generated AC synchronized to
> the external power frequency. The marketing people finally won the
> battle. Guess it was the money, not the truth.
>
> All computers and associated equipment, today, used switching power
> supplies which can continue to operate during the 2-4 cycles it takes
> the mechanical relay to switch and the time to start the electronics
> to begin supplying AC power.
>
> Paul

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 1:17 pm
From: Tony Hwang

Existential Angst wrote:
> Awl --
>
> On the main breaker box, for the whole house.
>
> First Q: Is surge protection strictly lightning-related?
>
> Holmes on Homes was emphasizing this, saying $500 wasn't much for the
> protection it affords.
> $500?????????????? Holy shit.....
>
> Isn't surge protection just some capacitors?? Connected to where? Each hot
> to ground? Between hots? Values?
> I have a ton of run/start caps, 20 to 100 uF, 370 V.
>
> If you have surge protection on the mains, do you then need those itty-bitty
> surge protectors fer yer pyooters?
>
> Also, sometimes equipment will have an iron-like ring around a wire -- I
> think in power supplies, mebbe surge protectors.
> What is that ring doing? And which wires go thru it? Hot? Hot+return?
Hi,
Whoa! At last EA is showing his true intelligence exposing his level of
ignorance. 'nuff said.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 1:27 pm
From: "Robert Swinney"

Paul sez:

"There was a HUGE argument between marketing
people and engineers relating to "UPS". Marketing called them
uninterruptable power sources (UPS) and engineers demanded they be
called Stand-By power sources(SPS). All the things you buy today are
really stand-by power sources. They have a real mechanical relay that
switches from the power line to battery source. A real UPS will cost
many hundreds to many thousands of dollars. They continually supply
power from batteries and the AC just keeps the batteries charged. An
electronic circuit keeps the internally generated AC synchronized to
the external power frequency. The marketing people finally won the
battle. Guess it was the money, not the truth."

One very knowledgeable cohort of mine used to speak of them as real UPS's and "chicken UPS's"
During that time, I was project manager on a couple of large UPS installations, both on PBX plants.
One was a 4000 line PBX and the other was 2000 line. They were Lorraine Electric units,
uninterruptible in every sense of the word, with huge lead-acid batterys. As I recall the batts in
the 4000 line unit were sized for nominally 24 hours.

Bob Swinney

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 1:38 pm
From: Tony Hwang

Robert Swinney wrote:
> Paul sez:
>
> "There was a HUGE argument between marketing
> people and engineers relating to "UPS". Marketing called them
> uninterruptable power sources (UPS) and engineers demanded they be
> called Stand-By power sources(SPS). All the things you buy today are
> really stand-by power sources. They have a real mechanical relay that
> switches from the power line to battery source. A real UPS will cost
> many hundreds to many thousands of dollars. They continually supply
> power from batteries and the AC just keeps the batteries charged. An
> electronic circuit keeps the internally generated AC synchronized to
> the external power frequency. The marketing people finally won the
> battle. Guess it was the money, not the truth."
>
> One very knowledgeable cohort of mine used to speak of them as real UPS's and "chicken UPS's"
> During that time, I was project manager on a couple of large UPS installations, both on PBX plants.
> One was a 4000 line PBX and the other was 2000 line. They were Lorraine Electric units,
> uninterruptible in every sense of the word, with huge lead-acid batterys. As I recall the batts in
> the 4000 line unit were sized for nominally 24 hours.
>
> Bob Swinney
>
>
>
Hi,
In my working days in radio telcomm. UPS was composed of battery bank,
motor-generator set and control(switching) unit. I don't recall we ever
suffered radio link outage. This is true UPS.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is Sarah Palin going bald?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/ea159f271de50845?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 12:00 pm
From: " Gregory Hall"

"Cliff" <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:dtp8q51dus34sm0agj2s9kb518c5tsmjhv@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.zeitgeistyreport.com/breaking-news/2010/03/19/is-sarah-palin-going-bald/
> "Is Sarah Palin going bald?"
> [
> Lately the mentally deficient bespectacled one has been sporting an
> obvious wig,
> which has led many to speculate whether or not she's trying to cover
> something
> up. It was well reported that during her campaign in 2008 she was so
> stressed
> patches of her hair had fallen out, but maybe the follicle loss may be due
> to
> more significant reasons. The greatest cause of female baldness is a
> disease
> called alopecia, this could be what's going on here. Or perhaps it just
> might be
> a sign from God!
> ....
> ]

Probably just a bunch of rumors but I do know this: hair has been growing on
my right palm since I became aware of her . . .

--
Gregory Hall

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 1:26 pm
From: Beam Me Up Scotty

On 3/20/2010 2:21 PM, Cliff wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:00:06 +0000 (UTC), Major Debacle
> <major_debacle@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Chief Egalitarian wrote:
>>>
>>> "Aratzio" <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:n1m9q5d89rngei72tf1222qi2h9d5gfan1@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 08:44:44 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>> "Chief Egalitarian" <Egal@legal_egal.law> got double secret probation
>>>> for writing:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Cliff" <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
>>>>> news:dtp8q51dus34sm0agj2s9kb518c5tsmjhv@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you must have been looking at your daddy's ass again!
>>>> First thing that comes to every wingnuts head, gay fantasies.
>>>>
>>>> This one has an extra special helping of wing nut family values thrown
>>>> in for good measure.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Typical lib fag fantasy always thinking about someone else's nuts. With
>>> extra ass looking thrown in for good measure.
>>
>> When you find yerself in a hole, the usual strategy is to stop digging,
>> but you do what seems right fer you.
>
> Wingers love to dig holes.
>
> Make a fortune: rent them ladders.
Libs stick their nose up other peoples butts, rent them mirrors!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Al Gore takes aim
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/4e2ba8fcc22c79a4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 12:08 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"

<dcaster@krl.org> wrote in message
news:c9b1a279-e9f7-41cd-80e5-323c978a63e0@g4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 20, 11:11 am, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:

> > Ed Huntress

> I'm far from being a math whiz but it's pretty clear that the math and the
> science required to put the pieces together is not something that a bunch
> of
> amateurs, from programmers to machinists to contractors to writers and
> editors, is going to be able to manage. I've tried reading some of the
> papers. Forget about it. It's not just that it's over my head. It's clear
> that it's over the heads of all but a fairly small number of scientists.
> Most of them are specialists.
>

>I believe it is beyond everyone at this time. And not so much a
>problem of the math but a problem of the data. I have a relative that
>has been measuring the time it takes sound to travel from the US to
>New Zealand in order to measure the temperature of the deep ocean.
>When he says there is global warming, I will listen.
>
>Meanwhile people as Al Gore say there is global warming. That is
>people that I do not thing have enough intelligence to decide who to
>listen to.
>
>
> >There is nothing inherently wrong with choosing to believe the
> >findings of a given scientist. But don't pretend that you have the
> >chops to understand those findings in any but the most elementary way,
> >or the methodology used to arrive at them.
>

>Sorry I believe I have ability to understand those findings and the
>methodology used to arrive at the findings. The fact that you are not
>does not mean that everyone here is incapable.
>
>Dan

I'd like to know how you can say "it is beyond everyone at this time," and
then, in the same message, say you "have the abillity to understand those
findings and the methodology."

Lots of people could learn to read the data, if they applied themselves. But
as you implied, hardly anyone does. That doesn't stop them from drawing
conclusions from things they don't know, however...

Furthermore, when you think there's a "problem with the data," that's about
the same thing as saying that you can't draw a conclusion. It presumes,
also, that you know what "correct" data would be necessary to draw
conclusions, or that you would recognize it if you saw it. I don't believe
that you do, unless you're a very experienced and knowledgable climatologist
in your other life. <g>

The kicker, to me, is that you're concluding that some indirect measurements
of the velocity of sound in water between the US and New Zealand is going to
give you the concluding data. I seriously doubt if you have any way of
knowing that one way or the other. At best, you're relying on the word of
some third-party specialist.

And that's the pattern of most amateurs who presume to know what they're
talking about. They don't. They're in self-delusional cloud-cuckooland.

--
Ed Huntress

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 12:11 pm
From: rangerssuck

On Mar 20, 2:12 pm, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 11:11 am, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > Ed Huntress
> > I'm far from being a math whiz but it's pretty clear that the math and the
> > science required to put the pieces together is not something that a bunch of
> > amateurs, from programmers to machinists to contractors to writers and
> > editors, is going to be able to manage. I've tried reading some of the
> > papers. Forget about it. It's not just that it's over my head. It's clear
> > that it's over the heads of all but a fairly small number of scientists.
> > Most of them are specialists.
>
> I believe it is beyond everyone at this time. And not so much a
> problem of the math but a problem of the data. I have a relative that
> has been measuring the time it takes sound to travel from the US to
> New Zealand in order to measure the temperature of the deep ocean.
> When he says there is global warming, I will listen.
>
> Meanwhile people as Al Gore say there is global warming. That is
> people that I do not thing have enough intelligence to decide who to
> listen to.
>
>
>
> > >There is nothing inherently wrong with choosing to believe the
> > >findings of a given scientist. But don't pretend that you have the
> > >chops to understand those findings in any but the most elementary way,
> > >or the methodology used to arrive at them.
>
> Sorry I believe I have ability to understand those findings and the
> methodology used to arrive at the findings. The fact that you are not
> does not mean that everyone here is incapable.
>
> Dan

Seriously? You care to back that up with an advanced math degree? Or
at least some evidence of your advanced mathematical education?

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 1:02 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"

"rangerssuck" <rangerssuck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:da86172e-0608-47ae-ada6-ffbc309a328a@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 20, 11:11 am, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "rangerssuck" <rangerss...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7936e9a4-30ac-456b-87fa-f469af4190a2@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 19, 11:03 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "D Murphy" <dmurf...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:Xns9D40E620AFEEDdmurf154attnet@130.133.4.11...
>
> > > Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >news:eak6q5tkh677j35fsmiocsh8nqom3fbvbq@4ax.com:
>
> > >> On 14 Mar 2010 05:29:18 GMT, D Murphy <dmurf...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > >>>olution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
>
> > >> Looks like 1998 was the hot year and its been getting cooler ever
> > >> since.
>
> > > Cliff isn't very good at math and has little understanding of science.
> > > It's
> > > funny how he will dismiss ten years of cooler temperatures as
> > > "weather"
> > > but
> > > cites an El Nino as a sign of impending global doom.
>
> > > --
>
> > > Dan
>
> > What's even funnier is you, or Gunner, or Larry, pretending that you
> > have
> > even the slightest clue of what you're talking about. You grab one
> > little
> > bag of factoids or another, and pretend that you know whether that bag
> > is
> > significant or not in the larger scheme of climate science, and then
> > pontificate about your "data" and "proofs" as if they're worth more than
> > a
> > warm pitcher of piss.
>
> > You really are some of the most farcical frauds on Usenet. I mean this
> > in
> > the nicest way, of course. d8-)
>
> > --
> > Ed Huntress
> >I would venture to guess that there is NOBODY who participates in this
> >group who has the math skills required to understand, even
> >superficially, the raw data that the deniers keep demanding.
>
> One irony here is that Cliff *may* be the one guy with the necessary math
> background. But that isn't the game he's playing, so you'll never know.
>
> I'm far from being a math whiz but it's pretty clear that the math and the
> science required to put the pieces together is not something that a bunch
> of
> amateurs, from programmers to machinists to contractors to writers and
> editors, is going to be able to manage. I've tried reading some of the
> papers. Forget about it. It's not just that it's over my head. It's clear
> that it's over the heads of all but a fairly small number of scientists.
> Most of them are specialists.
>
> This kind of science progresses when all of the specialists are able to
> assemble the work of their specialties and coordinate it into something
> comprehensive -- without politics or economics making a mess of it. Any
> politically or philosophically motivated crank or naysayer with some
> narrow
> and specialized knowledge can toss a monkey wrench into the larger
> machine,
> and they do, regularly.
>
> >Yet that
> >would never stop certain people from spouting their own version of
> >garbage as the "one truth."
>
> It's all politics, and what's said here in regard to climate science it is
> a
> complete farce.
>
>
>
> >There is nothing inherently wrong with choosing to believe the
> >findings of a given scientist. But don't pretend that you have the
> >chops to understand those findings in any but the most elementary way,
> >or the methodology used to arrive at them.
>
> Thank you. I've been saying that exact thing for years. It gets nowhere,
> so
> I generally just stay out of it -- until it gets personal and ridiculous.
>
>
>
> >Or, you could take the really simplistic route:
>
> >In Northern NJ:
> > * A couple of weeks ago, it was really cold and very snowy.
>
> > * Last week, it was pretty chilly and very windy and rainy.
>
> > * Today it was severely clear, sunny and warm.
>
> >Based on those observations alone, I'd say it's indisputable that
> >there's a significant warming trend...
>
> It was 82 deg. in Metuchen yesterday. It was stinking hot inside my car.
> d8-)
>
> But the snow is still piled up in the parking lot at the A&P.
>
> Obviously, the climate is playing tricks on us...if we could only figure
> out
> what they were.
>
>
>
> >Dan, Gunner, Larry and Rush would probably disagree.
>
> Reflexively. And ludicrously.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

>I have a friend who is in the midst of getting her PhD in
>paleoclimatology. You might think that SHE would be qualified to look
>at this data, but she freely admits that she's going to have to take a
>few more math courses before any of it starts to make sense.

That's the kind of thing I've heard from other people who are close to it,
like my PhD. meteorologist neighber. The ones who really know, or who are
close to knowing, are the ones who say that very few people actually have
the skills and background to put it all together.

>
>All that notwithstanding, I'm sure Gunner knows better. He does, after
>all have an IQ of 3000 or so.

I think it was 157. That's something like 1:13,000. <g>

>
>BTW, my friend studies at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in
>Palisades, NY. They have an open house once a year in the fall, and
>it's well worth the trip. The stuff they do and have there is
>fascinating.

I hope I remember that. I'd like to see it.

--
Ed Huntress

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 2:05 pm
From: "dcaster@krl.org"

On Mar 20, 3:08 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:

> I'd like to know how you can say "it is beyond everyone at this time," and
> then, in the same message, say you "have the abillity to understand those
> findings and the methodology."

Very easy. So easy you can probably understand. I think it is beyond
everyone at this time to say they understand the earths climate. I
think it is within my ability to understand the findings and
methodology that that is being used to say the earth is warming.

>
> Lots of people could learn to read the data, if they applied themselves. But
> as you implied, hardly anyone does. That doesn't stop them from drawing
> conclusions from things they don't know, however...
>
> Furthermore, when you think there's a "problem with the data," that's about
> the same thing as saying that you can't draw a conclusion. It presumes,
> also, that you know what "correct" data would be necessary to draw
> conclusions, or that you would recognize it if you saw it. I don't believe
> that you do, unless you're a very experienced and knowledgable climatologist
> in your other life. <g>

One of the complaints is that the raw data has been withheld. That
raises a red flag. Another complaint is that the US weather service
is using stations which are affected by where they are located. Most
are at airports and there have been changes at the airports which
affect the temperatures reported.

> The kicker, to me, is that you're concluding that some indirect measurements
> of the velocity of sound in water between the US and New Zealand is going to
> give you the concluding data. I seriously doubt if you have any way of
> knowing that one way or the other. At best, you're relying on the word of
> some third-party specialist.
>

The sound of water is affected by the density of the water. The
density of the water changes with temperature. Ergo you can determine
the temperature of the water by measuring the velocity of sound in the
water. You should have taken Physics in college. I though this was
so obvious that it needed no explanation. The method is not an
indirect measurement.

> And that's the pattern of most amateurs who presume to know what they're
> talking about. They don't. They're in self-delusional cloud-cuckooland.
>

I hope I have explained enough so you realize that it is you who
presume to know what you are talking about. And now realize that you
don't.
> --
> Ed Huntress

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 2:07 pm
From: "dcaster@krl.org"

On Mar 20, 3:11 pm, rangerssuck <rangerss...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Seriously? You care to back that up with an advanced math degree? Or
> at least some evidence of your advanced mathematical education?

Not really.

Dan

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 2:29 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"

<dcaster@krl.org> wrote in message
news:377bc530-70c8-413a-8b37-8fea8f30b6bf@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 20, 3:08 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:

> I'd like to know how you can say "it is beyond everyone at this time," and
> then, in the same message, say you "have the abillity to understand those
> findings and the methodology."

>Very easy. So easy you can probably understand. I think it is beyond
>everyone at this time to say they understand the earths climate. I
>think it is within my ability to understand the findings and
>methodology that that is being used to say the earth is warming.

Nonsense. How would you know what the appropriate data is? What DO you know
about which data is telling, and which is not? If you don't know those
things, then you can't understand the findings -- because you don't know
which are relevant and which are not.

>
> Lots of people could learn to read the data, if they applied themselves.
> But
> as you implied, hardly anyone does. That doesn't stop them from drawing
> conclusions from things they don't know, however...
>
> Furthermore, when you think there's a "problem with the data," that's
> about
> the same thing as saying that you can't draw a conclusion. It presumes,
> also, that you know what "correct" data would be necessary to draw
> conclusions, or that you would recognize it if you saw it. I don't believe
> that you do, unless you're a very experienced and knowledgable
> climatologist
> in your other life. <g>

>One of the complaints is that the raw data has been withheld. That
>raises a red flag.

How would you know if it's a red flag or a red herring?

> Another complaint is that the US weather service
>is using stations which are affected by where they are located.

How would you know if this is true, or if it has an influence on the
conclusions?

> Most
>are at airports and there have been changes at the airports which
>affect the temperatures reported.

How do you know how they affect the temperatures, in a quantitative sense?
Are you sure that most are at airports? How do you know? Because some
skeptic told you so?

> The kicker, to me, is that you're concluding that some indirect
> measurements
> of the velocity of sound in water between the US and New Zealand is going
> to
> give you the concluding data. I seriously doubt if you have any way of
> knowing that one way or the other. At best, you're relying on the word of
> some third-party specialist.
>

>The sound of water is affected by the density of the water.

No shit, Sherlock.

> The
>density of the water changes with temperature. Ergo you can determine
>the temperature of the water by measuring the velocity of sound in the
>water.

Duh...

> You should have taken Physics in college. I though this was
>so obvious that it needed no explanation. The method is not an
>indirect measurement.

Here's what's not obvious -- nor do you know the answer.

You're talking about one measurement path, a Great Circle, which may or may
not cross numerous currents, the initiation site for El Nino, and so on.
From that you're trying to draw a conclusion about global warming. You don't
know if the pattern between here and NZ is pro-cyclical or counter-cyclical
to the earth's temperature as a whole. You are talking about a measurement
taken over a short span of years, while the data being looked at by serious
scientists is data from decades at least, and hundreds of years in some
cases.

You're whistling in the dark.

> And that's the pattern of most amateurs who presume to know what they're
> talking about. They don't. They're in self-delusional cloud-cuckooland.
>

>I hope I have explained enough so you realize that it is you who
>presume to know what you are talking about. And now realize that you
>don't.

No. I'm the one who knows he DOESN'T know enough about it to fill a tin cup.
You're the one who's drawing all kinds of conclusions from bits and pieces
of data, second-hand. You don't even know how it relates to anything else of
substance. But you THINK you know. In that regard, you fit the pattern.

As for physics, I did Ok, thanks, both in high school and in college.

--
Ed Huntress

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Metric brass flats?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/76458a620bc87743?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 12:16 pm
From: Pete Keillor

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:05:01 -0500, Louis Ohland <ohland@charter.net>
wrote:

>On 3/20/2010 12:28, Robert Swinney wrote:
>> A lot of them do.
>>
>> Bob Swinney
>> "Louis Ohland"<ohland@charter.net> wrote in message news:98Uon.27324$ao7.4124@newsfe21.iad...
>> Is there a on-line metals place that has metric dimensioned brass
>> rectangular stock? I would rather not machine the steadyrest fingers
>> from imperial stock since it's going to result in a bunch of brass filings.
>
>Name one.
http://www.metricmetal.com/

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 12:28 pm
From: Louis Ohland

On 3/20/2010 14:16, Pete Keillor wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:05:01 -0500, Louis Ohland<ohland@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/20/2010 12:28, Robert Swinney wrote:
>>> A lot of them do.
>>>
>>> Bob Swinney
>>> "Louis Ohland"<ohland@charter.net> wrote in message news:98Uon.27324$ao7.4124@newsfe21.iad...
>>> Is there a on-line metals place that has metric dimensioned brass
>>> rectangular stock? I would rather not machine the steadyrest fingers
>>> from imperial stock since it's going to result in a bunch of brass filings.
>>
>> Name one.
> http://www.metricmetal.com/

Yup. Another RFQ. I want perhaps a meter of 8mm square stock.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: labelling plastic parts bins
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/b20ea27b9e6c5356?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 12:32 pm
From: Jerry Wass

Stu Fields wrote:
> I have a number of plastic parts bins purchased from Global. I want to put
> some adhesive backed computer generated labels on the bins. The labels peel
> off after about a week. Any ideas on what adhesive to use?? I've tried
> Elmers, hot glue and some acrylic. None of these seem to work. Global has
> said they don't know either>>>
>
> Stu Fields
>
>
The bins are probably exuding some plasticizer--cook 'em in the sun a
couple of days-- that should get rid of it---The degreasing may work,
but some more may exude later--popping the labels Jerry

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 12:59 pm
From: Joseph Gwinn

In article <XfqdnZjXSfbinzjWnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@linkline.com>,
"Stu Fields" <eh@iwvisp.com> wrote:

> I have a number of plastic parts bins purchased from Global. I want to put
> some adhesive backed computer generated labels on the bins. The labels peel
> off after about a week. Any ideas on what adhesive to use?? I've tried
> Elmers, hot glue and some acrylic. None of these seem to work. Global has
> said they don't know either>>>

What plastic are the bins made of? There should be a recycle logo on the bottom
telling the story. If the bins are polyethylene (many bins are), only adhesives
meant for polyethylene are going to work. I have bought such labels from
scientific supply houses, and have yet to have a label fall off. But these
labels are not suited to computer printing - I use a sharpie.

Joe Gwinn

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 1:57 pm
From: Richard J Kinch

Stu Fields writes:

> Any ideas on what adhesive to use?

Pitney Bowes or Office Depot brand *permanent* postage meter labels.

They have stayed stuck for decades.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bigger shaft (tap and die guide for tailstock)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/d0e6d4e9fbc496be?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 1:19 pm
From: "pdrahn@coinet.com"

> Sweet. Did you take in the Old Car Converted to Heavy-Duty Farm Tractor?

My Dad's first tractor, after WWII, was a Model A truck with the
chassis shortened and two transmissions, back-to-back. Duals on the
back with chains. He didn't make it, bought it from someone and drove
it 15 miles to get home. It was just too light to do much work with.

Paul

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 1:46 pm
From: whit3rd

On Mar 20, 10:00 am, "Denis G." <guill...@gis.net> wrote:

> > > This doesn't answer your questions, but you might find this old
> > > Popular Mechanics article useful to you:

> I saw that. I loved reading those magazines when I was growing up.
> There used to be a cartoon with a character that solved problems
> around the house. He would scratch his head and come up with a clever
> solution after a cloud with light bulb appeared over his head.

Wordless Workshop (by Roy Doty (?))

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rush to flee US
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/589453ba81b739ca?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 20 2010 1:42 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"

"Hawke" <davesmithers@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ho342t$dp4$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>>>> It really boils down to one question: What do you mean by a republic?
>>>> It's
>>>> really a good question, and the answer cuts through all of this
>>>> nonsense
>>>> quoting.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't you think the problem these guys have is they don't understand the
>>> meaning of the word democracy?
>>
>> I think that the first problem is that they don't know what the
>> *Founders*
>> meant by the word democracy.
>>
>>> It seems that they have got the idea that democracy means only one
>>> thing,
>>> a direct democracy. I guess they never learned that under the
>>> overarching
>>> term "democracy" there are considerably more than only one kind. They
>>> must
>>> have gone to "government" schools.
>>>
>>> Hawke
>>
>> The bigger problem is that they all have different ideas about what the
>> word
>> republic means, now, and what they think it meant to the Founders.
>> Hamilton,
>> Madison, and Jefferson all gave their definitions -- all of them
>> different.
>> <g>
>>
>> Jefferson acknowledged the problem in one of his letters. Yes, I have it
>> on
>> tap if required. And numerous historians, including the primary historian
>> of
>> Madison and his writings, make clear that what Madison meant by a
>> "republic"
>> then is what we now call a "representative democracy"; a phrase that
>> Jefferson was among the first to use, in that letter I quoted above from
>> 1815.
>>
>
> I'm still surprised at how many people are so concerned about what the
> founders thought. These guys were smart, sure, but they had the
> disadvantage of being 18th century thinkers. Common thought at the time
> was that blacks were less than human beings, women were property, voting
> was only for property owners, and duels were a proper way to deal with
> insults. They also had little real knowledge about how a "democracy" or a
> "representative republic" would work in America. The first try, the
> Articles of Confederation, worked badly. It seems rational to use their
> work and their design of the government as a foundation of our country but
> to think that we have to be held to exactly what they wanted or thought
> back then seems as crazy as believing the Bible has to be accepted in its
> entirety as absolute truth. Wait a minute. I just thought about something.
> The same people that want us to follow the founders to the letter are the
> same people who think we should follow the Bible to the letter too (just
> kidding). But it is true. It's the same people who want to follow the
> founders just like they want to follow religion. Glenn Beck is the worst.
> That guy wants to follow the constitution and the original intent of the
> founders just like it's the Koran and the words of the Prophet. No wonder
> the country is so screwed up with people like that having so much
> influence.
>
> Hawke

Well, Beck wants to follow the Constitution as he imagines it to be. <g>

Real, originalist conservatism -- Edmund Burke conservatism -- has some
strengths, such as having some solid rocks of culture, values, law, and so
on, that we can stand upon for stability. That does NOT mean that they
thought nothing should ever change. They just thought that change should
always be suspect, and should proceed slowly.

Taking that view of the Constitution is not a bad idea. It's the same idea
that Madison had (but which Jefferson definitely did not). We have the means
to amend our Constitution and it's been used dozens of times.

What I find annoying is that most of those Constitutional "originalists" we
have today have never read the darned thing. Nor have they studied the
history surrounding it, except to cherry-pick select bits and pieces that
reinforce their notions of what the Constitution *ought* to be. They've
never read all 85 of the Federalist Papers, nor the anti-federalist papers
(also 85, depending upon how you count them), nor the records of debate in
the House over the Bill of Rights. Most of all, they haven't read the many
federal court cases that put the Constitution to the test, generally with
legal questions that aren't clearly answered in the Constitution.

So they flounder around with an imagined Constitution, and little sense of
how it's been challenged by events that made it to court, or what doctrines
the courts have developed to deal with the many ambiguities and unwritten
questions in the document itself.

They live with a misunderstanding a lot like that of this guy:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

<g>

--
Ed Huntress

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

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.crafts.metalworking"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.crafts.metalworking+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

twitter

Saturday, March 20, 2010

rec.crafts.metalworking - 25 new messages in 9 topics - digest

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Previous Posts