Re: [Vo]:They're back!
I thought they were Klingon: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/klingon.htm Terry On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:57:50 -0500: Hi, [snip] Aren't alien craft more symmetrical than that? ;-) Harry On 30/3/2008 11:28 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: The dragonfly ufo drones are back in the new along with a leaked 1986 research document on reverse engineering: http://www.ufo-blog.com/ufo-blog/labels/california.html If you look closely at the photo, the bottom set of wires (twisted cables), which I'm guessing belong to a cable company, appear to intersect the object rather than crossing it as the other wires do. This implies to me that its a fake. In the video, the statement is made that the symbols match those from the Kecksburg(?) crash. This would of course be no surprise if it were faked, and the symbols taken from the Kecksburg doco. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Close the Patent Office
Michael Foster wrote: It is said that the head of the U.S. Patent Office wanted it closed in 1845, because everything significant had already been invented. That is a myth. No truth to it at all. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Heretical biology
--- William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if the structure is easy to detect. For example, if you shine a red laser through ultra-pure water, you can see the beam, since it's scattered by nano-crystallites which are part of water's short-range structure. Polarizing the water might alter the visible pattern? Yes, you can see a difference in the scatter when water or other polar solvent is subjected to a strong electric field. This is more easily visible with green and blue laser wavelengths. As I recall, the beam looks darker when viewed parallel to the e-vector. The effect is strongest when the e-vector of the the polarized laser is parallel to that of the applied electric field. I've haven't noticed as yet if there is a residual effect when the e-field is removed. This is one of those things you notice when you are working with something, but really don't know if it's well-known or of any interest to anyone else. You have to wonder if water is blue because of preferetial scatter of longer wavelengths. There doesn't seem to be a chromophore-like reason for this phenomenon. M. You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
Re: [Vo]:Close the Patent Office
Jed Rothwell wrote: Michael Foster wrote: It is said that the head of the U.S. Patent Office wanted it closed in 1845, because everything significant had already been invented. That is a myth. No truth to it at all. - Jed I saw a quote attributed to a man who was the head of the USPTO saying that every thing that was to be invented had been invented. I realize that this is not the same as saying that the USPTO should be closed, however it is the proverbial grain of truth. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
[Vo]:CNN.COM (Technology) - Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
I bet Jones will enjoy portions of this article. http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/algae.oil/index.html http://tinyurl.com/2t2de3 Alas, patience is needed. Last two paragraphs read: * * * * * * But Al Darzins of the National Renewable Energy Lab said the world is still probably 5 to 10 years away from any substantial use of biofuels. There's not any one system that anyone has chosen yet. Whatever it is has to be dirt, dirt cheap, said Darzins * * * * * * Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Close the Patent Office
thomas malloy wrote: It is said that the head of the U.S. Patent Office wanted it closed in 1845, because everything significant had already been invented. That is a myth. No truth to it at all. - Jed I saw a quote attributed to a man who was the head of the USPTO saying that every thing that was to be invented had been invented. I realize that this is not the same as saying that the USPTO should be closed, however it is the proverbial grain of truth. This comment is attributed to P.O. commissioner Charles Duell. However, he was knowledgeable and he did an excellent job, and all of his remaining published statements on the subject take the opposite view. See: http://www.myoutbox.net/posass.htm He couldn't have said this and meant it. I have heard two versions of the story: 1. He prefaced the statement with something like: Surely nobody believes that everything . . . 2. This is a completely unfounded myth. Someone who sounds like he knows what he is talking about recently told me that. See comment #95, here: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/did-bill-gates-really-say-that/ Frankly, I cannot imagine that anyone at the P.O. would ever believe that we have reached the end of science! The editors at Sci. Am. believe that, but they are extraordinarily stupid people. You wonder how they ever got where they are. I suppose Parkinson's Law explains it. Actually, come to think of it, while equally stupid people might end up in the P.O., I doubt they would think this is the end of science. Extreme stupidity that inhibits the central task of the institution is rare. The central task of Sci. Am. is to sell magazines and make Sci. Am. look authoritative. Attacking cold fusion and declaring that this is the end of science helps sell magazines. In that sense, these people are not stupid. They are irresponsible, immoral, and ultimately self-defeating I hope, but in the near term they do know how to sell magazines. Anyway, I know for a fact that Horgan and the other editors are certified blockheads, even if they know how to sell magazines. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Close the Patent Office
I already said I didn't know whether it was true or not, and it does have the ring of being apocryphal. However, that doesn't change my opinion that the USPTO should be closed now or severely re-organized. It is corrupt, lethargic, and incompetent. Unfortunately, an average person has the impression that a patent gives the imprimatur of credibility, which is why, I suppose this expensive joke is allow to continue. M. --- Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Foster wrote: It is said that the head of the U.S. Patent Office wanted it closed in 1845, because everything significant had already been invented. That is a myth. No truth to it at all. - Jed You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
Re: [Vo]:Close the Patent Office
Michael Foster wrote: I already said I didn't know whether it was true or not, and it does have the ring of being apocryphal. I was just pointing out that it definitely is apocryphal. However, that doesn't change my opinion that the USPTO should be closed now or severely re-organized. It is corrupt, lethargic, and incompetent. I agree completely! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Close the Patent Office
Jed Rothwell wrote: thomas malloy wrote: I saw a quote attributed to a man who was the head of the USPTO saying that every thing that was to be invented had been invented. I realize that this is not the same as saying that the USPTO should be closed, however it is the proverbial grain of truth. This comment is attributed to P.O. commissioner Charles Duell. However, he was knowledgeable and he did an excellent job, and all of his remaining published statements on the subject take the opposite view. See: http://www.myoutbox.net/posass.htm He couldn't have said this and meant it. I have heard two versions of the story: 1. He prefaced the statement with something like: Surely nobody believes that everything . . . 2. This is a completely unfounded myth. Someone who sounds like he knows what he is talking about recently told me that. See comment #95, here: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/did-bill-gates-really-say-that/ Frankly, I cannot imagine that anyone at the P.O. would ever believe that we have reached the end of science! That would be rather self defeating wouldn't it. The editors at Sci. Am. believe that, but they are extraordinarily stupid people. You wonder how they ever got where they are. I suppose Parkinson's Law explains it. Either that or they have an agenda. Actually, come to think of it, while equally stupid people might end up in the P.O., I doubt they would think this is the end of science. Extreme stupidity that inhibits the central task of the institution is rare. Yah, what about Baldwin Locomotive? Then there is GMC, which has, AFAIK still not produced a hybrid vehicle. The central task of Sci. Am. is to sell magazines and make Sci. Am. look authoritative. Attacking cold fusion and declaring that this is the end of science helps sell magazines. Why? In that sense, these people are not stupid. They are irresponsible, immoral, and ultimately self-defeating I hope, but in the near term they do know how to sell magazines. OTOH, this is the same organization which declared heavier than air flying machines impractical in 1907 (?) Anyway, I know for a fact that Horgan and the other editors are certified blockheads, even if they know how to sell magazines. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
[Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
- Original Message From: OrionWorks http://tinyurl.com/2t2de3 Wow - this guy Glen Kertz - who has an operating system (pictured) so his claims are based on actual results - sez he can produce about 100,000 gallons of algae oil peracre per year, compared to about 30 gallons per acre from corn; 50 gallons fromsoybeans. That appears to be the highest of the figures which have been claimed in the various published reports. It is one more bit of evidence that this is the best way to proceed with alternative fuel. Very high conversion efficiency - no soil depletion - and adaptability to desert locales. All of these are gigantic advantages. Even co-siting with windmills. It seems prudent that the huge amounts of money being poured into ethanol and thin-film solar cells should be discouraged and redirected to Algoil... or am I missing something? OK here we are back to figuring out - and then trying to rationalize the solar conversion rates. Prior to this, there have been a half dozen claims from operators of small ponds that the solar conversion rate for algae can push 50% when CO2 is force-fed. That is to say: half of all the solar energy falling on a pond is converted into oil energy. Many on Vo have doubted those efficiency estimates (which require added CO2 and heat) - but this technique substitutes a vertical growing area for the CO2. Actually many would prefer to see CO2 channeled into ponds, as long as there are coal plants emitting directly into the atmosphere, and it is not an either/or situation; since this technique works without the need for burning coal or methane, it appears that both methods have advantages for differing locales and situations. One acre is about 4047 meters^2 ... and sunlight in the southern USA transfers a kilowatt per meter^2 to earth at noon in the summer. If you figure that there are 4000 yearly hours of prime sunlight in some deserts, and reducing the maximum figure for irradiation by one quarter to account for mornings and evenings, that would be about 12 GW-hrs (12 million KW-hrs per acre-yr) unless my math is too hasty (once again ;-) Diesel oil contains about 120,000 btu per gallon of heat energy. One KW-hr is 3,400 btu. Kertz's acre of oil then gives 12 billion btu per year, which is about 3.5 GW-hrs. Not quite the 50% conversion efficiency which others have claimed, but not too shabby either... Even though there are many other political issues which are compelling in this election season, I personally will cast my vote for any candidate, even Nader (gag me with a rat) if that candidate will embrace an all-out Manhattan project type of committed effort towards Algoil. It is that important, IMHO. Where is our Green candidate? Unfortunately, anyone who is electable seems to always have Big-Oil backers. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Close the Patent Office
thomas malloy wrote: Frankly, I cannot imagine that anyone at the P.O. would ever believe that we have reached the end of science! That would be rather self defeating wouldn't it. Exactly! It would be against their interests, so even if it were true it is not likely they would recognize it. The editors at Sci. Am. believe that, but they are extraordinarily stupid people. You wonder how they ever got where they are. I suppose Parkinson's Law explains it. Either that or they have an agenda. My impression based on their articles and letters to me is that they are stupid. This is also my impression of the Bush administration's war in Iraq. I do not believe this outcome was masterminded to secure Iraqi oil. Their tactics are much too risky and wasteful. If they were smart, they could have secured the oil without destroying the country and without getting 4,000 U.S. soldiers killed, and 29,000 wounded. Actually, come to think of it, while equally stupid people might end up in the P.O., I doubt they would think this is the end of science. Extreme stupidity that inhibits the central task of the institution is rare. Yah, what about Baldwin Locomotive? Then there is GMC, which has, AFAIK still not produced a hybrid vehicle. I said that such stupidity is rare, not unheard of. Large institutions seldom collapse because of stupid decisions, but it does happen, as Parkinson, Tuchman and other authors have shown. Large institutions all go extinct eventually, for a variety of reasons. Stupidity is often a factor, but so are bad luck, obsolete technology, aging and death of the founders, and the factors described by Christensen in The Innovator's Dilemma (summarized by in my book, chapter 7). A few institutions, such as Enron, were destroyed by criminal behavior. This is rare. The central task of Sci. Am. is to sell magazines and make Sci. Am. look authoritative. Attacking cold fusion and declaring that this is the end of science helps sell magazines. Why? Controversy sells. Lurid scandal sells. Crystal healing energy and end-of-the-world, apocalyptic hokum sells, and the end of science hypothesis is more of the same. As Robert Park says, controversy spikes above the noise in Washington. If he were to write: I don't understand experiment X but I doubt it is valid no one would pay attention. So, instead, he says something like: Prof. Y is a creationist and a fraud. That gets attention. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
Howdy Jones, Notice buried deep in the CNN article is a remark by Kertz.. regarding their search for new forms of algae Intriguing details like that keep Kertz and other scientists searching for more and different algae. While dusty west Texas may not be the best hunting grounds, he said he is always on the lookout for samples in puddles, streams or ponds. This was the method used by the developers of the Medina soil activator. Railroad worker traveling across the southern Arizona desert notice certain small ponds had a prolific growth after a rainfall. Taking samples of the algae+ back to Medina Texas, he cultivated a stimulator. Not to worry.. after all these years and fields of high yield sorgum produced from spraying the activator has yet to interest the D of A. Richard Jones wrote, http://tinyurl.com/2t2de3
