Uncle Al
Bholu
or Kelkar, has the IQ of a smart tape worm.
I am looking for references in Phy.Rev.Lett or J.Phys (A/B/C/D) of
papers published by the good Uncle. I am genuinely interested in his
scholarly publications in peer reviewed journals besides sci.physics.
I am sure he has had more qualified company than Doctor Jai Maharaj.
Thanks bud.
donsto...@hotmail.com
advanced UNCLE HAL 9000 computer, the brain and nervous system of the
newsgroup. UNCLE HAL (for Universal Networked Colossus LINUX-based
Evangelical Heuristically-programmed ALgorithmic computer) was a
masterwork of the third computer breakthrough. These seemed to occur
at intervals of twenty years, and the thought that another one was now
imminent already worried a great many people. The first had been in
the 1940s, when the long-obsolete vacuum tube had made possible such
clumsy, high-speed morons as ENIAC and its successors. Then, in the
1960s, solid-state microelectronics had been perfected. With its
advent, it was clear that artificial intelligences at least as powerful
as Man's need be no larger than office desks-if one only knew how to
construct them. Probably no one would ever know this; it did not
matter. In the 1980s, Minsky and Good had shown how neural networks
could be generated automatically-self replicated-in accordance with any
arbitrary learning program. Artificial brains could be grown by a
process strikingly analogous to the development of a human brain. In
any given case, the precise details would never be known, and even if
they were, they would be millions of times too complex for human
understanding. Whatever way it worked, the final result was a machine
intelligence that could reproduce - some philosophers still preferred
to use the word "mimic"-most of the activities of the human brain, and
with far greater speed and reliability. It was extremely expensive, and
only a few units of the UNCLE HAL 9000 series had yet been built; but
the old jest that it would always be easier to make organic brains by
unskilled labor was beginning to sound a little hollow.
Thus is the story of our own UNCLE HAL. Accept no substitutes. Have a
nice day.
NunYa Bidness
>Thus is the story of our own UNCLE HAL. Accept no substitutes. Have a
>nice day.
You're a goddamned retard, donny boy.
Autymn D. C.
-Aut
todd_...@performancesimulations.com
your beef with Uncle Al?
Zigoteau
Hi, Bholu,
> Uncle Al seems to be quite knowledgeable, even his pet tape worm Kolkar
> or Kelkar, has the IQ of a smart tape worm.
Yes, Uncle Al definitely does have a great depth of knowledge in both
physics and chemistry. Many of his posts give evidence of extensive
experience and a clear understanding of fundamental theories in both
fields. It is therefore surprising that when you search for papers by
A.M. Schwartz in ISI-listed journals, the best match is the A.M.
Schwartz at Texceed Corp, 3001 Redhill 4-104, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ,
who appeared a lot in ChemTech about fifteen years ago, with
contributions entitled "Secrets", "Maple Syrup", "The Last Word" and
"Ask Schund". The references are 21 #1 (1991) 65, 20 #10 (1990) 642, 20
# 7 (1990) U449 and 20 #4 (1990) 193, respectively. Is that you, Al?
> I am looking for references in Phy.Rev.Lett or J.Phys (A/B/C/D) of
> papers published by the good Uncle. I am genuinely interested in his
> scholarly publications in peer reviewed journals besides sci.physics.
>
> I am sure he has had more qualified company than Doctor Jai Maharaj.
Of course, when you look at the manuscript on his website, his lack of
publications can perhaps be understood. Although there is certainly a
publication in there trying to get out, his written style is atrocious.
Moreover, given the clarity of thought in many of his posts, it is
surprising that he continues to bang on about Petitjean's CHI
parameter. For all that he repeats that gravity is not understood, and
I can relate to that, it is nevertheless a physical phenomenon for
which we have had a theory for the last 300 years, which is in
excellent agreement with measurements over more than thirteen orders of
magnitude of length scale. Einstein's theory is even better. There is
just no way in which a new theory giving an even better fit to reality
can have any connection to Petitjean's otherwise excellent concept.
Schulzie is correct that the manuscript just pulls the figure of 1e-13
out of thin air.
The number 1e-13 cannot be right. If there are effects related to
chirality, then they will be related in some way to typical atomic
separations of 1e-10 m. At the distances of 1e-1 m probed by Luo's kit,
there would have to be effects, even in weakly chiral materials, of
order 1e-10. Of course, we already know the result to a precision of
1e-12, so I'm not holding my breath. Either I or Al am/is missing
something, and I rather incline to the idea that it is Al. His response
to my statements about corn syrup and crystallography suggests that his
edge is getting a little blunt these days.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>If it doesn't run on IBM-Mac, then it isn't so smart after all.
That has to be one of the most retarded remarks ever made about
computing. You must be a MACtard.
NunYa Bidness
Hahahaha... I cannot wait to see his response to this one.
Uncle Al
[snip troll crap]
> Moreover, given the clarity of thought in many of his posts, it is
> surprising that he continues to bang on about Petitjean's CHI
> parameter. For all that he repeats that gravity is not understood, and
> I can relate to that, it is nevertheless a physical phenomenon for
> which we have had a theory for the last 300 years, which is in
> excellent agreement with measurements over more than thirteen orders of
> magnitude of length scale. Einstein's theory is even better. There is
> just no way in which a new theory giving an even better fit to reality
> can have any connection to Petitjean's otherwise excellent concept.
> Schulzie is correct that the manuscript just pulls the figure of 1e-13
> out of thin air.
>
> The number 1e-13 cannot be right. If there are effects related to
> chirality, then they will be related in some way to typical atomic
> separations of 1e-10 m. At the distances of 1e-1 m probed by Luo's kit,
> there would have to be effects, even in weakly chiral materials, of
> order 1e-10. Of course, we already know the result to a precision of
> 1e-12, so I'm not holding my breath. Either I or Al am/is missing
> something, and I rather incline to the idea that it is Al. His response
> to my statements about corn syrup and crystallography suggests that his
> edge is getting a little blunt these days.
Ignorance is your strong suit.
GR gravitation is inconsistent with Fredholm's equation. One cannot
solve for the metric tensor given the mass and momentum tensor.
Green's function is connected to the distance function whose
derivative is the metric tensor. Determining the metric tensor by
inverting Fredholm's equation using Green's function is non-obvious,
including successive approximations from an initial estimated Green's
function within reasonable field intensities. Given an undiscovered
Green's function connection, at what scale versus Newtonian
gravitation could an Equivalence Principle parity anomaly reside?
Sum all the delta function atomic masses of a body, each divided by
its distance from a given point, to calculate gravitational potential
at that point. Given atomic lattice structure at angstrom scales,
Newtonian gravitation at centimeter scales obtains. Green's function
G(x,y) has arguments "x" position of source and "y" position of field
potential measurement. It is a unique solution.
Choose an internal silicon atom from space group P3(1)21 and P3(2)21
alpha-quartz. Configuration of the four oxygens around each silicon,
in positions R in P3(1)21 and S in P3(2)21, defines lattice
chirality. The silicons are G(x,y) maxima. The next maxima must
occur at radial positions R but miss radial positions S (or reversed)
to obtain a parity-dependent solution. Silicon-oxygen bonding
distances are independent of chirality. Newtonian gravitation is
radial distribution of overall density and is inert to chirality. It
is textbook expositon that
G(x,y) = k|x - y|^(2-d)
from general topological arguments where "k" is a scaling constant,
"d" is the physical dimension of space, and "|x - y|" is the scalar
distance between the source and the measurement (ignoring timelike
components, retarded potentials, etc.). PARITY DEPENDENCE AT SMALLER
THAN LATTICE SCALE IS REQUIRED. The average nearest neighbor Si-O
distance in quartz is 1.609 Å. A 0.161 nm photon has energy 7.7 keV
compared to Si-O bond strength of 8.3 eV. Nuclear distances
correspond to MeV. Small wavelength, high frequency chiral
fluctuations have no apparent origin.
The minimum radius increment always adding atoms to a solid ball of
quartz lattice decreases as radius increases. It is less than Si-O
bonding distances by 10 Å radius. By empirical observation,
r = 10/R^2
where "r" is the smallest radial increment that will *always* include
more lattice atoms and "R" is the radius, all in angstroms.
A centimeter radius quartz test mass always adds atoms, has guaranteed
CHI fluctuation, with 10^(-10) fm radius increments. Oxygen and
silicon nuclear diameters are 6.05 and 7.29 fm respectively. Ambient
temperature thermal structure fluctuations are typically 3% of
chemical bond length. CHI fluctuation can originate a Green's
function-compatible far field gravitation parity anomaly if the
chirality emergence threshold is sufficiently aggregated.
CHI is independent of scale. Equivalence Principle parity tests *are*
dependent upon scale (aggregation; unit cell vs. crystal volumes)
given the desirability of having gravitation theory that satisfies
Fredholm's equation.
BTW,
1) Uncle Al doesn't give a sparrow's fart if you don't like the
unit mismatch in the last equation.
2) If you lack the cerebral horsepower to follow a rigorous
proposal, don't become a social advocate of small engines.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Zigoteau
Hi, Uncle Al,
> Ignorance is your strong suit.
You disappoint me.
> GR gravitation is inconsistent with Fredholm's equation.
So? So much the worse for Fredholm's equation. And what has that got to
do with my reasoning that any nonzero effect has got to be of order
1e-10 and not 1e-13? You are trying to blind me with science.
> One cannot solve for the metric
> tensor given the mass and momentum tensor.
Do you mean, given the energy-momentum flux tensor usually symbolized
T? You surprise me. Maybe the nonlinearities make exact solution
non-obvious near the event horizon of a black hole, but I think your
experiment involves extremely low fields, where the linear
approximation is quite adequate.
> Green's function is connected to the distance function whose
> derivative is the metric tensor.
Are you for real? What is that sentence supposed to mean, if anything?
> Determining the metric tensor by
> inverting Fredholm's equation using Green's function is non-obvious,
> including successive approximations from an initial estimated Green's
> function within reasonable field intensities.
I think you must be referring to the case of strong fields. My argument
was to do with an experiment currently being carried out on planet
Earth in Zhongguo Renmin Gong He Guo, involving quite small lumps of
crystalline SiO2, whose gravitational field does not endanger the lives
of the experimenters as they approach.
> Given an undiscovered
> Green's function connection, at what scale versus Newtonian
> gravitation could an Equivalence Principle parity anomaly reside?
The material chosen for the experiment is alpha-quartz. Any difference
between enantiomeric crystals must be to do with the different spatial
arrangement of the atoms on the scale of 1e-10 m.
In some of your posts you talk about intrinsic chirality resulting from
the weak interaction. This is of course quite small for low-Z atoms,
and if it occured it would have the same effect in both enantiomers.
However you specifically mention the case of AgGaS2, and quote the
paper J. Etxebarria, C. L. Folcia and J. Ortega, J. Appl. Cryst. 33
(2000) 126. I have gone to the trouble of getting a copy of that paper,
and if I may paraphrase its conclusion: "[The optical activity of
AgGaS2 has] been successfully interpreted within the model of
Devarajan & Glazer". I then got hold of the paper by Devarajan &
Glazer, Acta Cryst. A42 (1986) 560. The D&G model explains the optical
behavior in terms of conventional EM theory with polarizable bonds and
atoms, using "classical theories originally developed many years ago by
Born and others". I don't know where you got the idea that the weak
interaction was involved - certainly Extebarria et al. and Devarajan &
Glazer neither promote the idea nor even mention it as a possibility.
If you, or anyone else, are interested in reading either paper, I can
send you copies for private study.
Since the relative variation of the metric tensor due to each test mass
at its surface is of order 1e-27, nonlinearities of the field equations
may be completely ignored. It then follows that if there is any effect
of chirality at all, it must be of order 1e-10 or greater. However
differences between enantiomers have already been ruled out to order
1e-12.
> Sum all the delta function atomic masses of a body, each divided by
> its distance from a given point, to calculate gravitational potential
> at that point. Given atomic lattice structure at angstrom scales,
> Newtonian gravitation at centimeter scales obtains. Green's function
> G(x,y) has arguments "x" position of source and "y" position of field
> potential measurement. It is a unique solution.
I will go along with that.
> Choose an internal silicon atom from space group P3(1)21 and P3(2)21
> alpha-quartz. Configuration of the four oxygens around each silicon,
> in positions R in P3(1)21 and S in P3(2)21, defines lattice
> chirality. The silicons are G(x,y) maxima. The next maxima must
> occur at radial positions R but miss radial positions S (or reversed)
> to obtain a parity-dependent solution. Silicon-oxygen bonding
> distances are independent of chirality. Newtonian gravitation is
> radial distribution of overall density and is inert to chirality. It
> is textbook expositon that
>
> G(x,y) = k|x - y|^(2-d)
>
> from general topological arguments where "k" is a scaling constant,
> "d" is the physical dimension of space, and "|x - y|" is the scalar
> distance between the source and the measurement (ignoring timelike
> components, retarded potentials, etc.). PARITY DEPENDENCE AT SMALLER
> THAN LATTICE SCALE IS REQUIRED.
But how can this arise? The only difference between your two test
sources is that one is the mirror image of the other. It is only the
lattice that is different. If parity dependence at smaller than lattice
scale is required for parity violation, then parity is not violated.
> The average nearest neighbor Si-O
> distance in quartz is 1.609 Å. A 0.161 nm photon has energy 7.7 keV
> compared to Si-O bond strength of 8.3 eV. Nuclear distances
> correspond to MeV. Small wavelength, high frequency chiral
> fluctuations have no apparent origin.
You are blustering.
> The minimum radius increment always adding atoms to a solid ball of
> quartz lattice decreases as radius increases. It is less than Si-O
> bonding distances by 10 Å radius. By empirical observation,
>
> r = 10/R^2
>
> where "r" is the smallest radial increment that will *always* include
> more lattice atoms and "R" is the radius, all in angstroms.
So?
> A centimeter radius quartz test mass always adds atoms, has guaranteed
> CHI fluctuation, with 10^(-10) fm radius increments. Oxygen and
> silicon nuclear diameters are 6.05 and 7.29 fm respectively. Ambient
> temperature thermal structure fluctuations are typically 3% of
> chemical bond length. CHI fluctuation can originate a Green's
> function-compatible far field gravitation parity anomaly if the
> chirality emergence threshold is sufficiently aggregated.
Are you turning into a chatbot or something? What is all that supposed
to mean? What is an aggregated threshold?
> CHI is independent of scale. Equivalence Principle parity tests *are*
> dependent upon scale (aggregation; unit cell vs. crystal volumes)
> given the desirability of having gravitation theory that satisfies
> Fredholm's equation.
What about the desirability of being surrounded by nubile maidens and
fed grapes by their lily-white hands?
> 1) Uncle Al doesn't give a sparrow's fart if you don't like the
> unit mismatch in the last equation.
> 2) If you lack the cerebral horsepower to follow a rigorous
> proposal, don't become a social advocate of small engines.
Al, the manuscript on your website is not a rigorous proposal.
Sorry for hitting you in the goolies. No, actually, I guess I'm not all
that sorry. I'm not being nearly as ad-hominem as you usually are. And
I do think that you can do better.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
NunYa Bidness
>You are trying to blind me with science.
>
You do a fine job of that all by yourself.
Y.Porat
so another one revealed that Auymn is nothing but an imposter empty
crook
(from Uncle Al's school !!)
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------
Zigoteau
> You do a fine job of [blinding with science] all by yourself.
Wise man say, fight fire with fire.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
NunYa Bidness
Place yourself local (say a few hundred yards) to an above ground
thermo-nuclear test's ground zero point and watch while it goes off.
Don't forget to include a webcam pointed at your self from ten feet in
front of you.
There won't be anything left of you to fight back with.
Zigoteau
> There won't be anything left of you to fight back with.
Sure, Al can fight dirty. But he does have some scientific integrity.
Will you give me a medal (virtual, of course) if he returns, chastened,
to the fold, and starts helping little old ladies across the street?
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Autymn D. C.
Nope, the higher clock rates of competitors are a
money-electricity-heat-fuel-draining scam. Intels fit the guy-brain
schema perfectly. Only now have their assbackwards sawtooth dipped.
Macs have almost always been cheaper, mightier, cooler, longer, better,
and potentially faster. But shitheaded consumers think that buying
price is the same as whole price.
-Aut
NunYa Bidness
You're not little, old, or a lady.
Also, it was I, not Al that pushed the button in question.
Al is on the planet Tralfamador letting ethereal folks watch him
screw.
Now that one *IS* deep. :-J
Y.Porat
ask Uncle and 'Nun Ya' (which is actually the same crook
about their Diamond production
and when can we guy some of them with reduction as members of this NG
and May be they can tell you the difference between producing
something useful and balls boggling during their entire life.
-------------------
Y.Porat
----------------------------
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>NunYa Bidness wrote:
>> On 5 Sep 2005 22:27:44 -0700, "Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net>
>> Gave us:
>>
>> >If it doesn't run on IBM-Mac, then it isn't so smart after all.
>>
>> That has to be one of the most retarded remarks ever made about
>> computing. You must be a MACtard.
>
>Nope, the higher clock rates of competitors are a
>money-electricity-heat-fuel-draining scam.
You're a goddamned computer science idiot. My X2 64bit CPU/MOBO
combo runs at nearly half the temperature as my Dual CPU outfit did.
It sit here right now at 36C, after several hours of up time. That is
a calibrated, direct-on-the-sink reading.
It clocks out (benchmarks, dumbass) faster than all the intel fabs,
except their fastest models, and that is ONLY due to the fact that *I*
do not have the top of the line model.
My left over cycles run faster than your piece of shit does.
> Intels fit the guy-brain
>schema perfectly.
As if you had any clue what that is.
> Only now have their assbackwards sawtooth dipped.
Sounds more like you do. Wait till the cell cpu hits the fabs.
>Macs have almost always been cheaper, mightier, cooler, longer, better,
>and potentially faster.
At twice the cost. In the *value* analysis it falls flat on it's
wanna be posh face. Lately in the desktop power arena as well.
Do MACs have the new PCIX busses?
> But shitheaded consumers think that buying
>price is the same as whole price.
You're an idiot. I have been assembling computers since the XT
days.
I still have a Tandon 10MB full ht HD.
It's a proven fact that AMD has beat intel, and that they are
playing catch up.
The PCIX bus capacity for two paralleled graphics cards should have
been a big clue for you.
Also, I can do protein folding faster than superman changes clothes.
I'll bet nearly 8 times faster than whatever POS you have. That's a
pretty definitive benchmark, boy.
BTW, I am at the entry level, only 512kB x 2 L1. My Front side bus
is 2GHz.
But you can bet your ass it blazes. AMD's CPUs directly communicate
with each other right on the die assembly. Intel's crap requires
going out to the northbridge chip, and then back to the other cpu.
Sounds to me like a lot of unneeded overhead. Also, they have thermal
issues.
Come back when you have a clue, if you want to play with the big
boys when it comes to PCs, after the vacuous remarks you made.
donsto...@hotmail.com
heart. Keep it up, please. I need more such wonderful reading
material in the future.
- On The Side (I didnt know they moved it!!!!!!!)
Zigoteau
Hi NunYa,
> You're not little, old, or a lady.
Hey, two outa three ain't bad!
> Also, it was I, not Al that pushed the button in question.
Would that be the button holding up your pajama pants? Did you get it
undone in time? Tricky things, buttons.
> Al is on the planet Tralfamador letting ethereal folks watch him
> screw.
I guess you're talking about his Mensa meeting and his innuendos about
the man from Ulm. It's all over now. Apparently Al's talk was the most
rivetting one on the program.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
NunYa Bidness
>Hi Zigoteau
>
>
>ask Uncle and 'Nun Ya' (which is actually the same crook
You're an idiot, Porat. I do not even know the guy personally. I
have only witnessed his posting in this one group.
>about their Diamond production
>and when can we guy some of them with reduction as members of this NG
You're also a Usenet retard.
>
>and May be they can tell you the difference between producing
>something useful and balls boggling during their entire life.
May be?
I have done more in the last year of my life than your lame ass will
accomplish in your entire lame life.
Al has likely done a couple orders of magnitude more than I.
I'm sure that one of his acts was calling you the friggin' twit you
are.
NunYa Bidness
Actually, dork-o-breath, it's from a very famous film.
Your age is showing.
Y.Porat
Y.P
------------------------------
NunYa Bidness
>how an asshole like you knows what i have done??
>
>
Because you are going around calling Al whatever the fuck you call
him and any others. That certainly makes YOU a bloody know nothing,
do nothing asswipe.
That, and the fact that your retarded ass seems to think Al and I
are the same person.
You could be a bit more retarded, but not in this life.
Uncle Al
Nope - the Tahitian oral sex movie and its 38 minute female orgasm
(fast-forwarded). We did an empirical evaluation thereafter. Looks
like it will be a long term investigation with significant benchmarks.
Uncle Al's talk was a curiosity. As the Chairman of American Mensa
said, "He used to work for me." Capitalism is strong within us.
harmony
"Zigoteau" <zigo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125996435.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hi, Bholu,
>
>
> > Uncle Al seems to be quite knowledgeable, even his pet tape worm Kolkar
> > or Kelkar, has the IQ of a smart tape worm.
>
>
> Yes, Uncle Al definitely does have a great depth of knowledge in both
> physics and chemistry. Many of his posts give evidence of extensive
> experience and a clear understanding of fundamental theories in both
> fields. It is therefore surprising
not surprising.
if he is smart, he wouldn't have voted for w. bush.
Uncle Al
He didn't. The 2004 election was one of spite.
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>> not surprising.
>> if he is smart, he wouldn't have voted for w. bush.
>
>He didn't. The 2004 election was one of spite.
I cannot believe some of the bullshit these guys sling at you, Al.
Y.Porat
and it came out to be a gig balloon as he himself
2 i dont understand how can you defend such a rude disturbed person.
3 attacking Al and his behavior and achievements does not tell you
anything about
what i have done
4 too many people here had enough with that person!
5 you said you did marvelously this year-
can we know something about it ??
6 why do you keep your identity hidden if not please identify yourself
a decent scientist has no reason to hide his identity.??
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
NunYa Bidness
>
>3 attacking Al and his behavior and achievements does not tell you
>anything about
>what i have done
No, asswipe... it tells us about who and what you are.
You clueless bastard.
Traveler
What does it feel to kiss your own ass, Uncle Dickhead? ahahaha...
ahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Does it stink as bad as John Baez's
ass? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
Phew! Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Y.Porat
now it is clear you are at the same gang.!
a zero human being
did you took your pills today??
Y.P
-----------------
Y.Porat
the old disturbed cook
you cant miss it
Y.P
------------------
Autymn D. C.
illiterate idiotic retard
Y.Porat
Auty is an incarnation of Al
Y.P
----------------------
NunYa Bidness
>imbecil crook gangster
>now it is clear you are at the same gang.!
>a zero human being
>did you took your pills today??
>
Jeez... one of my turds could do better than that.
NunYa Bidness
>now we know
>Auty is an incarnation of Al
>
Crimany! We are dealing with a 12 year old mentality with this
Porat retard.
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>NunYa Bidness aka Uncle Dickhead wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:11:59 -0700, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
>>Gave us:
>>
>>>> not surprising.
>>>> if he is smart, he wouldn't have voted for w. bush.
>>>
>>>He didn't. The 2004 election was one of spite.
>>
>> I cannot believe some of the bullshit these guys sling at you, Al.
>
>What does it feel to kiss your own ass, Uncle Dickhead? ahahaha...
>ahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Does it stink as bad as John Baez's
>ass? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
>
>Phew! Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
>
>Louis Savain
>
Wow. I just got one hell of a laugh from that one.
I'll bet Al will as well.
I didn't know you twits could actually be so delusional.
Y.Porat
you are a peace of a human shit
and a fucken gangster.
Y.P
------------
harmony
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:431F9DEF...@hate.spam.net...
> harmony wrote:
> >
> > "Zigoteau" <zigo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1125996435.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Hi, Bholu,
> > >
> > >
> > > > Uncle Al seems to be quite knowledgeable, even his pet tape worm
Kolkar
> > > > or Kelkar, has the IQ of a smart tape worm.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, Uncle Al definitely does have a great depth of knowledge in both
> > > physics and chemistry. Many of his posts give evidence of extensive
> > > experience and a clear understanding of fundamental theories in both
> > > fields. It is therefore surprising
> > (snip)
> >
> > not surprising.
> > if he is smart, he wouldn't have voted for w. bush.
>
> He didn't. The 2004 election was one of spite.
>
thank sir. you'r a scholar and gentleman - that includes your replies to
habshi.
Traveler
You mean NunYa is Varnette? ahahaha... I knew Varnette was an ass
kisser but I never realized he kissed Uncle Dickhead's ass to the
point of copying his writing style. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahaha...
Uncle Al
The parity Etovs experiment either nulls or does not null. The first
case is SOP 420 years of investigation and is publishable as such.
The second case overthrows all of physics without contradicting any
prior observation. Win or big win.
Imagine Richard Schultz pursuing his constricted plebeian career or
Savain foaming at the mouth. A trivial exercise in existing equipment
- a New Age wombat would have said the same thing, "quartz crystals!"
- could be the most telling experiment since Galileo. Kewl!
Worst of all... failure is a viable option. Sarfatti has blown tens
of megabytes of pseudotechnical trash out his ass. Where has failure
ever gotten him?
One can appreciate what they hate and, most of all, what they fear.
Uncle Al and his Army of Light, without so much as a PERT chart, sit
back and chortle. The looking is important. The seeing will take
care of itself.
Uncle Al says, "Be your own cause."
Traveler
[cut]
>The parity Etovs experiment either nulls or does not null. The first
>case is SOP 420 years of investigation and is publishable as such.
>The second case overthrows all of physics without contradicting any
>prior observation. Win or big win.
Win your ass. This stupid experiment of yours adds absolutely nothing
to the body of physics knowledge. Zilch.
>Imagine Richard Schultz pursuing his constricted plebeian career or
>Savain foaming at the mouth. A trivial exercise in existing equipment
>- a New Age wombat would have said the same thing, "quartz crystals!"
>- could be the most telling experiment since Galileo. Kewl!
In your dreams. There is absolutely no reason to conduct your stupid
experiment. It was a well orchestrated con game and a few idiots (all
of them ass kissers) fell for it. No different than say, quantum
computing, wormholes, black holes, time travel, artificial
consciousness, dimensions curled up into fucking little balls,
parallel universes and the like. Get a fucking clue, crackpot.
>Worst of all... failure is a viable option. Sarfatti has blown tens
>of megabytes of pseudotechnical trash out his ass. Where has failure
>ever gotten him?
Nothing will exonerate you from this. Failure is not an option for
you. It is guaranteed. Your Eotvos crap is a perfect example of your
cluelessness. That a bunch of idiots take you seriously is an
indictment of the sorry state of fundamental physics.
>One can appreciate what they hate and, most of all, what they fear.
>Uncle Al and his Army of Light, without so much as a PERT chart, sit
>back and chortle. The looking is important. The seeing will take
>care of itself.
>
>Uncle Al says, "Be your own cause."
You are nothing but a narcissistic asshole with nothing to contribute
to science. At least John Baez can write a little mathemagical puzzle
book and contribute something to nerd entertainment. You, OTOH, have
nothing to offer. But you can always kiss ass. Kissing ass is a good
way to get ahead in the physics community. But you know that. You kiss
Baez's ass at every opportunity. ahahaha... ahahaha... Total failure!
AHAHAHA... ass... ahahaha...
Phew! Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>On 8 Sep 2005 07:47:31 -0700, "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote:
>
>>fuck of shithead Varney
>>
>>you are a peace of a human shit
>>and a fucken gangster.
>>
>>Y.P
>>------------
>
>You mean NunYa is Varnette? ahahaha... I knew Varnette was an ass
>kisser but I never realized he kissed Uncle Dickhead's ass to the
>point of copying his writing style. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahaha...
>
>Louis Savain
You're an idiot. Yesterday, you were declaring I am Al. Today, you
are talking to yet ANOTHER retard about who you idiots think I am.
I am no one you ever had discourse with. Get a clue, asswipe.
Do a search on "get a clue, asswipe" or "got clue"
Maybe you'll get lucky.
Autymn D. C.
> You're a goddamned computer science idiot. My X2 64bit CPU/MOBO
a bunch of terms that don't specifically mean anything
> combo runs at nearly half the temperature as my Dual CPU outfit did.
> It sit here right now at 36C, after several hours of up time. That is
> a calibrated, direct-on-the-sink reading.
I wasn't even arguing about generations. But be more specific about
your "combos" and "outfits" and tasks before you try to pass that off
as a boast.
> It clocks out (benchmarks, dumbass) faster than all the intel fabs,
> except their fastest models, and that is ONLY due to the fact that *I*
> do not have the top of the line model.
Why are you telling me this? Maybe you're talking to yourself out
loud?
> My left over cycles run faster than your piece of shit does.
I'm using a laptop. The laptops you use burn you in more ways than
one.
> As if you had any clue what that is.
Guy brains? They've lots of cholesterol and water because they tend to
overheat on a given set of tasks. So they take up more room. They
handle one task quite well though!
> >Macs have almost always been cheaper, mightier, cooler, longer, better,
> >and potentially faster.
> At twice the cost. In the *value* analysis it falls flat on it's
> wanna be posh face. Lately in the desktop power arena as well.
it's -> its, illiterate
Wrong, unnamed tool: http://systemshootouts.com. They are cheaper.
What part of cheaper don't you understand? The prima facie better
"value" of your brands come at about twice the failure rate, by number
and by lifetime. It's quite correlated with the difference in power
consumption per given speed between us and ye. This is why you need
the tech support and longer warranties.
(http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1851295,00.asp) You may want to
get the book on how to lie with statistics, if you're not going to
calculate how much more you're paying for upkeep.
> Do MACs have the new PCIX busses?
Look it up and answer your own questions. I'm not a lifeless luser who
follows the latest boxes' bits... And Mac is not an acronum.
http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html
http://www.apple.com/xserve/specs.html
> > But shitheaded consumers think that buying
> >price is the same as whole price.
> You're an idiot. I have been assembling computers since the XT
> days.
>
> I still have a Tandon 10MB full ht HD.
wholly non sequitur
> It's a proven fact that AMD has beat intel, and that they are
> playing catch up.
beaten
> The PCIX bus capacity for two paralleled graphics cards should have
> been a big clue for you.
and?
> Also, I can do protein folding faster than superman changes clothes.
> I'll bet nearly 8 times faster than whatever POS you have. That's a
> pretty definitive benchmark, boy.
What about this, girl? Wait, I shouldn't call you that--maybe "bug":
http://www.apple.com/education/science/profiles/vatech/.
> BTW, I am at the entry level, only 512kB x 2 L1. My Front side bus
> is 2GHz.
>
> But you can bet your ass it blazes. AMD's CPUs directly communicate
> with each other right on the die assembly. Intel's crap requires
> going out to the northbridge chip, and then back to the other cpu.
> Sounds to me like a lot of unneeded overhead. Also, they have thermal
> issues.
>
> Come back when you have a clue, if you want to play with the big
> boys when it comes to PCs, after the vacuous remarks you made.
Show me some numbers.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
donsto...@hotmail.com
wall" debate (although you obviously get some sort of payback from it.)
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>I'm using a laptop. The laptops you use burn you in more ways than
>one.
Not Using a laptop, dipshit.
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>it's -> its, illiterate
Not illiterate, asswipe. *it* happens.
>Wrong, unnamed tool: http://systemshootouts.com. They are cheaper.
Bullshit.
>What part of cheaper don't you understand?
What part of less than $500 compared to your several thousand do you
not understand?
> The prima facie better
>"value" of your brands come at about twice the failure rate,
Bullshit. I had my dual cpu Athlon and four other machines up for 3
years 24/7 Crunching seti the whole time, among other things. Not in
background either... main process. Now, my dual core 64 bit Athlon
will run circles around your shitbox. All you get is a cockle warmer.
> by number
>and by lifetime.
Bullshit. Mac played catch up when PCI came out, When AGP came out,
and will again for PCIx. Why is it you guys are following our leads?
> It's quite correlated with the difference in power
>consumption per given speed between us and ye.
You're an idiot.
> This is why you need
>the tech support and longer warranties.
I don't call tech support and I assemble my own machines.
The fact that you don't know what X2 means proves you aren't capable
of building your own machines, so it is you that always needs help.
NunYa Bidness
>fuss -> Endless worthless time-wasting "might as well stare at a blank
>wall" debate (although you obviously get some sort of payback from it.)
Your assessments show you to be retarded. That fact that you post
your assessments makes you a group idiot.
Do you have anything of substance to post?
PLaToPeS
Traveler wrote:
>
> What does it feel to kiss your own ass, Uncle Dickhead? ahahaha...
> ahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Does it stink as bad as John Baez's
> ass?
First-hand information?
Hey! Everything cannot have come from nothing - nothing would then
be, "that thing from whence came everything", and not nothing. Nothing
can have no relationships. It's the sound of one hand clapping -
doesn't exist save as a human concept *within* everything.
Too bad, eh?
P
hanson
news:1126468533.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Traveler wrote:
>> What does it feel to kiss your own ass, Uncle Dickhead?
>> ahahaha... ahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Does it stink as
>> bad as John Baez's ass?
>
> First-hand information?
>
[hanson]
ahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... Mitch!... Shhhh.... You brash inquiry
makes you suspect.... ahahaha.....
>
[Mitch Perkins to Louis/Traveler]
> Hey! Everything cannot have come from nothing - nothing
> would then be, "that thing from whence came everything",
> and not nothing. Nothing can have no relationships. It's the
> sound of one hand clapping - doesn't exist save as a human
> P
>
[hanson]
Mitch, Louis is **extending** (1) the principle of Dirac's virtual
particle sea, the short-lived particle pairs (+/-) that pop out of
and back into nothingness and (2) it is an old idea in cosmology
which says the total momentum and total energy of the cosmos
must be zero,... including the parellel universes view.
But your point, Mitch,.... " nothing would then be, "that thing from
whence came everything", and not nothing" ... is valid. Perhaps
it is merely semantics but I like Louis to clarify his view on this
issue.
Good talking to you, Mitch.
hanson
Traveler
>"PLaToPeS" <plat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1126468533.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Traveler wrote:
>>> What does it feel to kiss your own ass, Uncle Dickhead?
>>> ahahaha... ahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Does it stink as
>>> bad as John Baez's ass?
>>
>[Mitch Perkins aka platypussy]
>> First-hand information?
>>
>[hanson]
>ahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... Mitch!... Shhhh.... You brash inquiry
>makes you suspect.... ahahaha.....
Yep, I have my suspicions about Perkins. ahahaha... He likes to be
abused a little too much, methinks. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>[Mitch Perkins to Louis/Traveler]
>> Hey! Everything cannot have come from nothing - nothing
>> would then be, "that thing from whence came everything",
>> and not nothing. Nothing can have no relationships. It's the
>> sound of one hand clapping - doesn't exist save as a human
>> concept *within* everything. -- Too bad, eh?
>> P
>>
>[hanson]
>Mitch, Louis is **extending** (1) the principle of Dirac's virtual
>particle sea, the short-lived particle pairs (+/-) that pop out of
>and back into nothingness and (2) it is an old idea in cosmology
>which says the total momentum and total energy of the cosmos
>must be zero,...
Actually, there is a slight imbalance, otherwise there would be no
change/motion. The greater the imbalance, the greater the forces that
try to correct it.
> including the parellel universes view.
"Parallel universes" is nonsense, IMO. There is only one nothing.
>But your point, Mitch,.... " nothing would then be, "that thing from
>whence came everything", and not nothing" ... is valid. Perhaps
>it is merely semantics but I like Louis to clarify his view on this
>issue.
Of course 'nothing' is a thing but it is a special thing. For one, it
is unique among things in that it is neither positive nor negative.
All things have polarity except nothing. 'Nothing' is a thing in the
same sense that zero is a number, albeit a special number. The word
nothing is misleading, IMO. We need a new word that stands for "the
sum of it all".
Autymn D. C.
>Not Using a laptop, dipshit.
It was rhetoric, retard. use and using are different concepts. Learn
English or die. I notice that you deleted the part where you were
supposed to tell what you were using.
> Not illiterate, asswipe. *it* happens.
because you're an illiterate!
> What part of less than $500 compared to your several thousand do you
> not understand?
What part of less-than-$500 doorstop don't you understand? Maybe you
have benchmarks for /those/ you should want to use against me. Do you
even have the upkeep costs? The site that you said was bullshit showed
that non-RISC chips are ripoffs, and that Intel is a criminal before
and after the chip is made:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2444675.stm.
> Bullshit. I had my dual cpu Athlon and four other machines up for 3
> years 24/7 Crunching seti the whole time, among other things. Not in
> background either... main process. Now, my dual core 64 bit Athlon
> will run circles around your shitbox. All you get is a cockle warmer.
I wasn't talking about Athlon. Go fight another door or wall.
AMD's failure rate: ~5±3%
http://www.overclockers.com/articles667/
http://google.com/search?num=100&q=AMD+OR+Athlon+%22failure+rate%22+-drive+processor
When they fail, they're immediate as opposed to after a few years like
Intel's; and they fail thrice as often as Intel's.
IBM's failure rate: unreported
http://google.com/search?num=100&q=IBM+OR+Power+OR+PowerPC+%22failure+rate%22+-drive+processor
> > by number
> >and by lifetime.
>
> Bullshit. Mac played catch up when PCI came out, When AGP came out,
> and will again for PCIx. Why is it you guys are following our leads?
Non sequitur again and red herring. Other platforms /made/ those new
busses, which they needed because their native speeds were lousy. Macs
only adopted when they needed, as networking and calculations weren't
Apple's job and it was frivolous to adopt earlier. In the meantime,
Macs dealt with outer busses, keeping the much-faster and
more-expandable SCSI and adopting the USB and FireWire (iLink) first.
Though the poor support for its architecture lately makes the clueless
like you think that Power chips are inherently slower.
> > It's quite correlated with the difference in power
> >consumption per given speed between us and ye.
> You're an idiot.
You're a deluded retard.
> I don't call tech support and I assemble my own machines.
whatever for?
> The fact that you don't know what X2 means proves you aren't capable
> of building your own machines, so it is you that always needs help.
I could look it up. That has nothing to do with my capability, and I
have no need to build any.
...
Okay, I looked it up. I told you to give me numbers, but you didn't.
And there turned out to be several models of X2, as I suspected, so
admit it was your mistake. You said there was another dual core that
you didn't specify. You didn't tell what you used it for either, so
screw off.
I wasn't even attacking AMD by name, but since you have pushed it and
swiped at Macs, I'll give you a problem and a challenge. 1. Why can't
many chips run the same thread? 2. Macs have long been able to run
about 18 OSes, many of which at once. They have also always supported
16 kinds of clicks /with/ a one-button mouse, through the keyboard
modifier keys for better efficiency; the fn key may explode this
number, but I haven't checked. Their trackpad wares have been able to
emulate any N-button input device and scroller in M-dimensions, though
engineers haven't taken advantage of it until lately. What are the
comparable numbers for these features in the Wintelath world?
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
Louis is wrong again.
all = infinity
everything = all in X
most = omega in X
something = x_i in X; anything = x in X
least = iota in X
nothing = none in X
none = zero
The outer four cannot be reified or realised, so they don't exist.
Both infinity and zero have no polarity; thus they may not be numbers,
or may so with a closed mapping. But they are beyond "things" because
of their qualifiers.
-Aut
Y.Porat
Y.P
---------------------
Y.Porat
(and not with the gangsters......)
Y.P
----------------
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>
>It was rhetoric, retard. use and using are different concepts. Learn
>English or die. I notice that you deleted the part where you were
>supposed to tell what you were using.
I told you what I was using in the first post, retard.
Learn to read.... AND DIE.
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>because you're an illiterate!
No. Because I am often tired.
You, on the other hand, are merely petty.
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>
>What part of less-than-$500 doorstop don't you understand? Maybe you
>have benchmarks for /those/ you should want to use against me. Do you
>even have the upkeep costs? The site that you said was bullshit showed
>that non-RISC chips are ripoffs, and that Intel is a criminal before
>and after the chip is made:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2444675.stm.
Had you used what few active neurons you have to READ the post, you
would have noted that I am not using Intel at all.
You're an idiot... Times two.
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>I wasn't talking about Athlon. Go fight another door or wall.
You're an idiot. You just made a jack-off remark about non-RISC
CPUs.
Guess what, dipshit... AMD makes non-RISC CPUs.
>
>AMD's failure rate: ~5?3%
>http://www.overclockers.com/articles667/
Oh boy! Like I give a shit what some retards that over clock their
gear say or do. Like their stats have any credence among normal
computer users.
>http://google.com/search?num=100&q=AMD+OR+Athlon+%22failure+rate%22+-drive+processor
It's a retarded search, done by a retard. Statistically invalid
from the start.
Hey, retard boy... don't you know that line length in Usenet is
supposed to stop at 74 characters?
Oh... that's right... you are one of those bastards that ignores
all the posting protocols.
>
>When they fail, they're immediate as opposed to after a few years like
>Intel's; and they fail thrice as often as Intel's.
Their are several modes of failure in the world of electronics.
The "failures" you cite are thermal related in scenarios that do NOT
match ANY of the proper utilization procedures for the given CPU.
If the heatsink ain't on, it will fry. If you over clock it, it will
fry instantly upon heat sink interface failure.
Get a clue, retard boy.
>
>IBM's failure rate: unreported
>http://google.com/search?num=100&q=IBM+OR+Power+OR+PowerPC+%22failure+rate%22+-drive+processor
Yet another retarded link post.
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>> Bullshit. Mac played catch up when PCI came out, When AGP came out,
>> and will again for PCIx. Why is it you guys are following our leads?
>
>Non sequitur again and red herring.
Bullshit.
> Other platforms /made/ those new
>busses, which they needed because their native speeds were lousy.
You're an idiot. The references were to graphics SUB SYSTEMS,
dumbass. If they were so "lousy" why did apple follow suit by
adopting them?
> Macs
>only adopted when they needed, as networking and calculations weren't
You're an abject idiot.
>Apple's job and it was frivolous to adopt earlier.
They didn't HAVE it "earlier" dumbass.
> In the meantime,
>Macs dealt with outer busses, keeping the much-faster and
>more-expandable SCSI and adopting the USB and FireWire (iLink) first.
Nope. USB was not an apple invention. Fire Wire was from Sony, and
SCSI has been around for decades... even before Apple existed.
The fact that they made their version of it proprietary makes them
even more retarded.
>Though the poor support for its architecture lately makes the clueless
>like you think that Power chips are inherently slower.
They are losing more and more battles, every day.
I was around when they came out. I was around when the 4040 and
8088 came out. I think I can handle this one.
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>> The fact that you don't know what X2 means proves you aren't capable
>> of building your own machines, so it is you that always needs help.
>
>I could look it up. That has nothing to do with my capability, and I
>have no need to build any.
X2, dipshit. That's DUAL core. That's 2 CPUs on one die.
And it runs cool. So much for your stupidity, and your inability to
keep current.
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>I wasn't even attacking AMD by name, but since you have pushed it and
>swiped at Macs, I'll give you a problem and a challenge. 1. Why can't
>many chips run the same thread?
You're an idiot.
> 2. Macs have long been able to run
>about 18 OSes, many of which at once.
The primary is "run". the others are emulated, you retarded twit.
> They have also always supported
>16 kinds of clicks /with/ a one-button mouse,
That has to be the most retarded thing you've said yet.
That is like wearing mittens while you "work".
I have multiple controllers here. A left hand device that supports
72 different key combinations that can have entire strings tied to any
given one. My mouse has three keys and a ball, so I do not even move
my right hand to work. The only finger not in use is my "pinky"
finger.
Mac's one button pointing device is about as retarded (look the
word up, dipshit) as it gets. Talk about taking a step backward.
> through the keyboard
>modifier keys for better efficiency;
You're a legend in your own mind.
> the fn key may explode this
>number, but I haven't checked.
My keyboard has 41 keys more than a standard 105 key device, and has a
scroll barrel. The function keys have an additional key that shifts
even them so there are another 12 key functions beyond the 41 extra I
already mentioned.
You could be a bit more retarded, but it is getting difficult to see
how it could get any worse.
> Their trackpad wares have been able to
>emulate any N-button input device and scroller in M-dimensions,
Oh boy! Yet another follow the rest of the world tag behind lame.
> though
>engineers haven't taken advantage of it until lately.
Engineers use PCs. Unless you are referring to kitchen design...
Bwuahahahaha...
> What are the
>comparable numbers for these features in the Wintelath world?
Wintelath? Methinks you lame too much. Are you gay as well?
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>from whence -> whence
You're an idiot.
Y.Porat
Y.P
---------------------------
Simpli
Autymn D. C.
>I told you what I was using in the first post, retard.
>Learn to read.... AND DIE.
You learn to read ahead before posting, and flooding, shithead. You
did not tell under the specifications. Lay off your wanking and short
attention span enough to stop flooding with your message fragments. It
looks like you have a seizure after you try to read or write more than
a few sentences.
>>because you're an illiterate!
>No. Because I am often tired.
>You, on the other hand, are merely petty.
Being tired does not let you think that "it's" means "its".
>Had you used what few active neurons you have to READ
>the post, you would have noted that I am not using
>Intel at all.
>You're an idiot... Times two.
I knew that, and you're an idiot for thinking I didn't.
>You're an idiot. You just made a jack-off remark
>about non-RISC CPUs.
>Guess what, dipshit... AMD makes non-RISC CPUs.
which suck and overheat when they're not emulating a RISC.
>Oh boy! Like I give a shit what some retards that over
>clock their gear say or do. Like their stats have
>any credence among normal computer users.
They're from dealers, shithead.
>It's a retarded search, done by a retard. Statistically
>invalid from the start.
groundless claims
>Hey, retard boy... don't you know that line length in
>Usenet is supposed to stop at 74 characters?
Sex-confused retard, Google does what it does without my consent.
>Oh... that's right... you are one of those bastards that
>ignores all the posting protocols.
which is better than your psycho flooding.
>Their are several modes of failure in the world of
>electronics.
Let me guess--you are tired again.
>The "failures" you cite are thermal related in
>scenarios that do NOT match ANY of the proper utilization >procedures for the given CPU.
>If the heatsink ain't on, it will fry. If you over
>clock it, it will fry instantly upon heat sink interface >failure.
>Get a clue, retard boy.
You get a clue, retard girl. You're too damned stupid to have read my
cites to understand that the failures were structural and immediate and
not thermal. Stuff yourself with your own strawman.
>Bullshit.
is what your head is made of.
>You're an idiot. The references were to graphics SUB SYSTEMS,
>dumbass. If they were so "lousy" why did apple follow suit by
>adopting them?
I told you in the next sentence, blind shithead.
>You're an abject idiot.
You're an indefensible coward.
>They didn't HAVE it "earlier" dumbass.
That's what I said, shithead.
>Nope. USB was not an apple invention. Fire Wire was from
>Sony, and SCSI has been around for decades... even before
>Apple existed.
>The fact that they made their version of it proprietary makes
>them even more retarded.
I didn't say invented, fucking blind retard. I said kept and adopted.
I wish I had a troll gun to put some holes in your head to match those
I put in your messages.
>They are losing more and more battles, every day.
which?
>I was around when they came out. I was around when the 4040
>and 8088 came out. I think I can handle this one.
Given the equivalency chart on
http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html and the top speed of
your Athlon, and that of the G5, it looks like a dead heat.
>X2, dipshit. That's DUAL core. That's 2 CPUs on one die.
>And it runs cool. So much for your stupidity, and your
>inability to keep current.
It's dipshitty to use a letter for the multiplication sign, as letters
are used for names and numbers. Being uppercase made it worse. The
stupidity is all yours.
>>1. Why can't many chips run the same thread?
>You're an idiot.
You're an idiot unless you can answer this.
>The primary is "run". the others are emulated, you retarded
>twit.
Processes are processes, and they are all run, evasive retard. Now
answer the question: How many OSes can yours run?
>>They have also always supported 16 kinds of clicks /with/
>>a one-button mouse,
>That has to be the most retarded thing you've said yet.
>That is like wearing mittens while you "work".
Wrong, you're supposed to have a hand on the keyboard and another on
the pointer for best efficiency, not one on the pointer and the other
on your crotch.
>I have multiple controllers here. A left hand device that
>supports 72 different key combinations that can have entire
>strings tied to any given one. My mouse has three keys and >ball, so I do not even move my right hand to work. The only
>finger not in use is my "pinky" finger.
Too bad, third-party devices don't count because they use their own
logic and can be written for any platform. Answer the question without
your tools.
>Mac's one button pointing device is about as retarded (look
>the word up, dipshit) as it gets. Talk about taking a step
>backward.
Click, double click, and hold-click are all of the actions needed to do
most tasks in the Mac's GUI because it was well-designed, unlike the
other pieces of rubbish that are so clunky that it takes longer (more
buttons and clicks, retard) to access them. The one-button mouse is
faster, better, and less-distracting. Face it, tool: http://xvsxp.com.
>My keyboard has 41 keys more than a standard 105 key device,
>and has a scroll barrel. The function keys have an additional
>key that shifts even them so there are another 12 key
>functions beyond the 41 extra I already mentioned.
I was talking about clicking, not macros. Such devices
(http://www.jr.com/Templates/HiRes/JR_HiRes.tem?HRIPath=MIDKB720W%2EPNG&HRTitle=MICRO+INNOVATIONS+KB720W+Wireless+Desktop+Pro+%28+Windows+PC+%29
I take it?) are ripoffs because they can be handled better by software,
onscreen.
>You could be a bit more retarded, but it is getting difficult
>to see how it could get any worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
>>Their trackpad wares have been able to emulate any N-button
>>input device and scroller in M-dimensions,
>Oh boy! Yet another follow the rest of the world tag behind
>lame.
behind? Prove it.
>Engineers use PCs. Unless you are referring to kitchen
>design... Bwuahahahaha...
Tools use PCs, and scientists consider engineers retards for making
sweeping generalisations of properties and concepts. That must be why
they use PCs.
>Wintelath? Methinks you lame too much. Are you gay as well?
I meant Wintelathix. No, I'm pissed off that you're a projecting
clueless troll who's wasting my time.
-Aut
Y.Porat
please dont insult 'Auty'
he is not an idiot
he (repeat - HE) is a psycho
that is much more respectable!!
Y.P
---------------------
PLaToPeS
Autymn D. C. wrote:
[snip]
>
> Being tired does not let you think that "it's" means "its".
>
P
PLaToPeS
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:40:14 GMT, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> >"PLaToPeS" <plat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1126468533.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >[Mitch Perkins to Louis/Traveler]
> >> Hey! Everything cannot have come from nothing - nothing
> >> would then be, "that thing from whence came everything",
> >> and not nothing. Nothing can have no relationships. It's the
> >> sound of one hand clapping - doesn't exist save as a human
> >> concept *within* everything. -- Too bad, eh?
> >> P
> >>
> >[hanson]
> >Mitch, Louis is **extending** (1) the principle of Dirac's virtual
> >particle sea, the short-lived particle pairs (+/-) that pop out of
> >and back into nothingness and (2) it is an old idea in cosmology
> >which says the total momentum and total energy of the cosmos
> >must be zero,...
>
> Actually, there is a slight imbalance, otherwise there would be no
> change/motion. The greater the imbalance, the greater the forces that
> try to correct it.
Imbalance between...?
>
> > including the parellel universes view.
>
> "Parallel universes" is nonsense, IMO.
Ah, that's settled then.
> There is only one nothing.
Don't accept anything less.
>
> >But your point, Mitch,.... " nothing would then be, "that thing from
> >whence came everything", and not nothing" ... is valid. Perhaps
> >it is merely semantics but I like Louis to clarify his view on this
> >issue.
>
> Of course 'nothing' is a thing
Of course! Hence the name...
> but it is a special thing.
Special...yes.
> For one, it
> is unique among things in that it is neither positive nor negative.
Perhaps it hasn't decided yet.
> All things have polarity except nothing. 'Nothing' is a thing in the
> same sense that zero is a number, albeit a special number.
Zero was added to an existing number system. Zero denotes the absence
of something which was there, and which might be back again. Nothing is
just nothing.
> The word
> nothing is misleading, IMO.
Is that why you keep using it?
We need a new word that stands for "the
> sum of it all".
How about "everything"?
The concept of opposites is severely limited - positive/negative
charge is a map to describe energy density flow. The flow exists, the
"+" and "-" are concepts.
What's the opposite of a salt shaker? All existence minus said salt
shaker? So the salt shaker "goes" into non-existence, at which point
it doesn't exist and cannot have an opposite or any kind of
relationship to anything in existence. Dead end.
We need a new word for "the sum of it all, minus a salt shaker".
P
Traveler
>Dead end.
ahahaha... Perkins, I've come to the conclusion that you are either a
pederast or a pedophile. ahaha... I can't tell which. ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... At any rate, you may be having a good time, but you're
wasting mine. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>At any rate, you may be having a good time, but you're
>wasting mine. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
You waste the time of everyone that reads your spew.
OHOHOHO... hohoho...
Traveler
<nunyab...@nunyabidness.org> wrote:
>spew
Bend over, Varnette. I'll show you spew. ahahaha... ahahaha...
PLaToPeS
Traveler wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2005 12:03:12 -0700, "PLaToPeS" <plat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Dead end.
>
> ahahaha... Perkins, I've come to the conclusion that you are either a
> pederast or a pedophile.
WOW!!!
> ahaha... I can't tell which. ahahaha...
> AHAHAHA... At any rate, you may be having a good time, but you're
> wasting mine. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
Oh well. Listen, good luck at the hat biting contest. I'm sure you'll
win this time, as long as your knees show up. Failing that you can
always work at Starbucks.
P
"It wasn't me." - Someone Else
PLaToPeS
[snip]
> >
> [Mitch Perkins to Louis/Traveler]
> > Hey! Everything cannot have come from nothing - nothing
> > would then be, "that thing from whence came everything",
> > and not nothing. Nothing can have no relationships. It's the
> > sound of one hand clapping - doesn't exist save as a human
> > concept *within* everything. -- Too bad, eh?
> > P
> >
> [hanson]
> Mitch, Louis is **extending** (1) the principle of Dirac's virtual
> particle sea, the short-lived particle pairs (+/-) that pop out of
> and back into nothingness
Short-lived particle pairs (+/-) pop out of and back into that which
they pop out of and back into, which therefore cannot be defined as
"nothing". No pops in "nothing". Attempts to define "nothing" fail at
the second word - "Nothing is...". There is only what is, which
includes "currently unknown".
Of course, this is just what makes sense to me.
> and (2) it is an old idea in cosmology
> which says the total momentum and total energy of the cosmos
> must be zero,...
Isn't that what's needed to attain light-speed? All the energy?
> including the parellel universes view.
Oh yeah... // Oh yeah...
> But your point, Mitch,.... " nothing would then be, "that thing from
> whence came everything", and not nothing" ... is valid. Perhaps
> it is merely semantics but I like Louis to clarify his view on this
> issue.
"Clarify his view" is an oxymoron in Louis' case.
See ya,
P
Bob Cain
Traveler wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2005 12:03:12 -0700, "PLaToPeS" <plat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Dead end.
>
>
> ahahaha... Perkins, I've come to the conclusion that you are either a
> pederast or a pedophile. ahaha... I can't tell which. ahahaha...
> AHAHAHA... At any rate, you may be having a good time, but you're
> wasting mine. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
What would you call what you are doing with it?
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."
A. Einstein
PLaToPeS
Bob Cain wrote:
> Traveler wrote:
> > On 14 Sep 2005 12:03:12 -0700, "PLaToPeS" <plat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Dead end.
> >
> >
> > ahahaha... Perkins, I've come to the conclusion that you are either a
> > pederast or a pedophile. ahaha... I can't tell which. ahahaha...
> > AHAHAHA... At any rate, you may be having a good time, but you're
> > wasting mine. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> What would you call what you are doing with it?
>
P
Traveler
I wouldn't mind working at Starbucks if I have to. I am not proud and
I like good coffee. ahahaha...
Traveler
<arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>
>
>Traveler wrote:
>> On 14 Sep 2005 12:03:12 -0700, "PLaToPeS" <plat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dead end.
>>
>>
>> ahahaha... Perkins, I've come to the conclusion that you are either a
>> pederast or a pedophile. ahaha... I can't tell which. ahahaha...
>> AHAHAHA... At any rate, you may be having a good time, but you're
>> wasting mine. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
>What would you call what you are doing with it?
Yeah, but it's my time. I'll waste it on my own terms, as I see fit.
Traveler
At least, every once in a while, you show a good sense of humor. All
is not lost.
PLaToPeS
> On 14 Sep 2005 13:55:14 -0700, "PLaToPeS" <plat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh well. Listen, good luck at the hat biting contest. I'm sure you'll
> >win this time, as long as your knees show up. Failing that you can
> >always work at Starbucks.
>
> I wouldn't mind working at Starbucks if I have to.
Come on! You're a better hat biter than *that*!
> I am not proud and
> I like good coffee.
What the hell does that have to do with uncle Al?
> ahahaha...
Now you've made me angry.
P
Autymn D. C.
> You're an idiot.
Yes you are.
Quantum Mirror
NunYa Bidness wrote:
> On 7 Sep 2005 04:28:28 -0700, "Zigoteau" <zigo...@yahoo.com> Gave us:
>
> >
> >Hi NunYa,
> >
> >
> >> You're not little, old, or a lady.
> >
> >
> >Hey, two outa three ain't bad!
> >
> >
> >> Also, it was I, not Al that pushed the button in question.
> >
> >
> >Would that be the button holding up your pajama pants? Did you get it
> >undone in time? Tricky things, buttons.
> >
> >
> >> Al is on the planet Tralfamador letting ethereal folks watch him
> >> screw.
> >
> >
> >I guess you're talking about his Mensa meeting and his innuendos about
> >the man from Ulm. It's all over now. Apparently Al's talk was the most
> >rivetting one on the program.
> >
>
> Actually, dork-o-breath, it's from a very famous film.
>
> Your age is showing.
Actually the film is from a Kurt Vonnegut book: Slaughterhouse-Five
It is getting close to the end of the experiment. Inquiring minds want
to know. Has the eotvos balance stopped turning yet?
Uncle Al
[snip]
> It is getting close to the end of the experiment. Inquiring minds want
> to know. Has the eotvos balance stopped turning yet?
Let's say that the full parity Eotvos experiment in left- vs.
right-handed single crystal quartz still in data workup. It's the
first time an Eotvos rotor has been loaded compositionally identically
on both sides. With all variables ideally compensated, tiny residuals
become visible.
Win or lose, it hasn't been boring. No, not at all, at least not yet.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Quantum Mirror
I have enjoyed every thread since I first read about it in 2001!
Thank you for the entertainment. I always wanted to ask you where you
got the idea for this experiment. Was it some anomaly you saw in
chemistry or physics? Or was it a question of physics that was not
logical?
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b21
1) All symmetries are 1:1 coupled to properties.
2) Internal variables don't first-order couple to rotation or
translation, by definition.
3) Parity is the only external symmetry/property that has never
been examined. It is non-Noetherian! A parity-dependent theory of
gravitation ia already on the books (dating from 1932),
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0501017
Review of affine vs. metric gravitation
It's was no brainer - teh last remaining place to look. Calculating
quantitative geometric parity divergence of two test masses was
something of a bother. Then we needed a suitable academic research
group to do the real world experiment.
The book will be entitled, 'UNDESERVING!"
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>Quantum Mirror wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> It is getting close to the end of the experiment. Inquiring minds want
>> to know. Has the eotvos balance stopped turning yet?
>
>Let's say that the full parity Eotvos experiment in left- vs.
>right-handed single crystal quartz still in data workup. It's the
>first time an Eotvos rotor has been loaded compositionally identically
>on both sides. With all variables ideally compensated, tiny residuals
>become visible.
>
>Win or lose, it hasn't been boring. No, not at all, at least not yet.
Good job, Al.
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
It is a proof of a long standing theory that previous proofs had
enough error involved as to not be definitive.
Traveler
<nunyab...@nunyabidness.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:15:52 -0700, Uncle Dickhead <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
Uncle Dickhead... ass... kiss... ahahaha... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
ahahaha...
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>The book will be entitled, 'UNDESERVING!"
Interesting choice!
Traveler
<nunyab...@nunyabidness.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:48:49 -0700, Uncle Dickhead <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
>Gave us:
>
>>The book will be entitled, 'UNDESERVING!"
>
>
>Interesting choice!
Uncle Dickhead... ass... kiss... ahahaha... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Uncle Al
Thank you.
Either the full parity Eotvos experiment comes in as a null and the
grad student gets his PhD SOP, or it comes in as a non-null and
everybody else loses theirs. Uncle Al is a chemist. Winning a
certain Swedish prize for demonstrating an Equivalence Principle
parity anomaly can have only one possible bottom line on my end,
Chemical company Personnel, "Al, your career seems to lack focus."
I'm kinda thinking that if it were a simple case of "nothing" then my
PR Chinese collaborator wouldn't be climbing the walls and pacing the
ceiling. I suspect physics is in for a left-handed compliment.
The data is in. Let the universe decide. The really nasty outcome
would be a clean Eotvos factor of 1 part in ten trillion. Hot damn,
now what do we do for a bigger signal? Single crystal tellurium for
its heavier atoms? That's gonna cost big time.
Autymn D. C.
Y.Porat
between Uncle Al Autymn and Nunya
is very interesting ...............!!
one to ten trillion ...... heeey
how do you like it Auty (Uncle Nun.......) you are very happy with
it dont you?
unlike your aggression to other experimental ideas and findings
Eh.....
i start to admire you as great honest unbiased scientists .
it is very serious and convincing Eh ??.......
btw how is the Diamonds business doing ??
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
I'd love to see one of your T-shirt designs! heheh...
Kind of Dali-esque :-]
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:00:02 GMT, NunYa Bidness (aka Varnette)
><nunyab...@nunyabidness.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:48:49 -0700, Uncle Dickhead <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
>>Gave us:
>>
>>>The book will be entitled, 'UNDESERVING!"
>>
>>
>>Interesting choice!
>
>Uncle Dickhead... ass... kiss... ahahaha... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>ahahaha...
You're an idiot. I am not Al. He likely thinks I am just another
asshole, only not as bad as you.
Funny too, is up until these most recent posts, you have been
calling me someone else. Make up your mind.
>
>Louis Savain, "The Idiot"
Yes, you are.
Traveler
<nunyab...@nunyabidness.org> wrote:
> I'd love to see one of your T-shirt designs! heheh...
>
> Kind of Dali-esque :-]
Kiss... kiss... ass... ass... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
jmfb...@aol.com
<grin> Well, if nothing else, you'll have caused somebody to
defy said gravity.
> I suspect physics is in for a left-handed compliment.
>
>The data is in. Let the universe decide.
This sure has been a long two weeks. Did you get to watch
any of the boring lab work getting done?
> ..The really nasty outcome
>would be a clean Eotvos factor of 1 part in ten trillion. Hot damn,
>now what do we do for a bigger signal? Single crystal tellurium for
>its heavier atoms? That's gonna cost big time.
Would you need a better computation service for this, too?
It sounds like you would have to wait for the next generation
of computer to get developed for this. You do tend to eat up
CPU-centuries of runtime.
/BAH