A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Valeev is by no means the worst offender



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old February 23rd 09, 12:00 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
jmfbahciv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 302
Default Americans - Insane in the Membrane

Ian Parker wrote:
On 22 Feb, 11:59, jmfbahciv [email protected] wrote:

That's really too bad. You could have had a really interesting
thread here yakking with Ms. Douglas.

I think you have to think whether or not people want a serious answer
or not. Ms Douglas clearly does not. I think it would indeed be
arrogant of me to claim that my ideas were the only ones, or the best.
I am not claiming that. What I am claiming is that people who are
clearly intent on causing mischief and doing nothing more should be
dealt with in short time.

She does not want a proper discussion, she has in fact said so. So any
nonsense about way out ideas etc. is way off beam. NO ideas, way oout
or not have actually been presented.


snip

Of course she would like a proper discussion. She's curious. However,
it is impossible to have one with you. The fact that she figured this
out in two posts or less indicates that she has an ability to think
well. You, apprently, don't have that ability and don't want to have
that ability.

/BAH
Ads
  #182  
Old February 23rd 09, 12:03 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
jmfbahciv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 302
Default Americans - Insane in the Membrane

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

jmfbahciv wrote:

That's really too bad. You could have had a really interesting
thread here yakking with Ms. Douglas.


I don't think that was ever an option with Ian...he
makes outrageous statements...a veritable tsunami
of prose...but when it's pointed out to him that said
statements are flawed, instead of defending or sup-
porting his claims scientifically, he takes off on an
obfuscating tangent and/or attacks the person
challenging him.

IMHO, the only thing interesting here is his conceit
of himself.


Some inane posts produce interesting discussions because other
readers get curious and start posting, leaving the ahem
think-challenged behind.

/BAH
  #183  
Old February 23rd 09, 12:06 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
jmfbahciv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 302
Default Americans - Insane in the Membrane

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

jmfbahciv wrote:
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
kT wrote:

snip

Honestly, if science wasn't fun, the tedium would drive you insane ...
Got _that_ in one. And the pay usually sucks...no one does
this to get rich...but the toys can make up for a lot of tedium
and late hours...at least they have so far.

What I don't understand is why the crackpots avoid all lab work.
The reason to take science classes is to be able to play in the
labs. The lab class times were never long enough.


Their loss, our gain. :-)

I suspect it might have something to do with ego...the few
I've run across aren't (and haven't) actually worked in science
and so they seem to think there's something demeaning about
doing benchwork...especially ghasp! in a wet lab. In their
minds, the hands-on stuff is done to order (their order) by a
technician while they sit at a deck and think Big Ideas.


But that is no fun at all. Testing your ideas and seeing if they
work, or more interestingly not work, is part of the fun.

I don't know about you, but I didn't go into this field to sit
behind a desk or rot in meetings (which is not to say I don't
have to do both on occasion)...I chose this path so I could
get paid for satisfying my own curiosity while playing with
some of the most expensive toys in town. So far, that plan
has panned out nicely. :-)


Very nice :-). I was going to grow up to be a marine biologist
but got side-traced and stumbled into the computer biz. In order
to get things fixed "right", I went to work for a computer
manufacturer. Every machine room was a lab.

/BAH
  #184  
Old February 23rd 09, 12:29 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Americans - Insane in the Membrane



jmfbahciv wrote:

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:


I suspect it might have something to do with ego...the few
I've run across aren't (and haven't) actually worked in science
and so they seem to think there's something demeaning about
doing benchwork...especially ghasp! in a wet lab. In their
minds, the hands-on stuff is done to order (their order) by a
technician while they sit at a deck and think Big Ideas.


But that is no fun at all. Testing your ideas and seeing if they
work, or more interestingly not work, is part of the fun.


I don't know if it's "more interestingly", but it's certainly
"more likely"...particularly if one is working with living
entities with their own agendas. Microbes can be such
notional wee things. :-)

Deirdre
  #185  
Old February 23rd 09, 12:41 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Americans - Insane in the Membrane



jmfbahciv wrote:

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

jmfbahciv wrote:

That's really too bad. You could have had a really interesting
thread here yakking with Ms. Douglas.


I don't think that was ever an option with Ian...he
makes outrageous statements...a veritable tsunami
of prose...but when it's pointed out to him that said
statements are flawed, instead of defending or sup-
porting his claims scientifically, he takes off on an
obfuscating tangent and/or attacks the person
challenging him.

IMHO, the only thing interesting here is his conceit
of himself.


Some inane posts produce interesting discussions because other
readers get curious and start posting, leaving the ahem
think-challenged behind.


My guess is that this particular think-challenged soul is the
sort who will interrupt and disrupt any discussion that takes
place without him...rather like having a toddler in the room.
While I agree in theory with your premise, I suspect that given
the living entities involved, it's impossible to pull off in prac-
tice. :-(

Deirdre
  #186  
Old February 23rd 09, 12:42 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default Americans - Insane in the Membrane

On 23 Feb, 12:03, jmfbahciv [email protected] wrote:
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

jmfbahciv wrote:


That's really too bad. *You could have had a really interesting
thread here yakking with Ms. Douglas.


I don't think that was ever an option with Ian...he
makes outrageous statements...a veritable tsunami
of prose...but when it's pointed out to him that said
statements are flawed, instead of defending or sup-
porting his claims scientifically, he takes off on an
obfuscating tangent and/or attacks the person
challenging him.


IMHO, the only thing interesting here is his conceit
of himself.


Some inane posts produce interesting discussions because other
readers get curious and start posting, leaving the ahem
think-challenged behind.

The real interest in this, I mean to sensible poaters not the "beni Al-
kalb", is in terms of the Singularity University. What it is doing,
why NASA is involved, why Google is involved. Can the SU advance
technology?

The SU is offerering short graduate courses. No doubt these are going
to be open for NASA/Google employees. I have one coment that anyone
reading this thread will have.

If I work for Google what I will learn at the SU will be respected and
put into practice in some way or other. No real doubt about that. I
though I work for NASA will a layer or "bin(t) Al-kalb" moronity make
it a black mark against me? This to me is a real question. Another
real question in the wider political arena is the loyalty that Obama
can command in the military. You see I don't think all this fact is
directed exclusively to me.

Obama has produced a "stimulus package" and has talked at the same
time about narrowing the budget deficit (about 10% of GDP currently)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/92d8a656-d...nclick_check=1
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...t-1629344.html

Where is the money coming from? Taxes on wealthy, closing of hedge
fund loopholes etc. etc. No my friend there is only one large untapped
source and that is MILITARY SPENDING. He has not spelled it out in as
many words, but that is as inevitable as night follows day.

Will the SU produce really useful results? I am sure it will in a
number of areas. NASA must have a "schwerpunkt" a point of reference,
a main program. I think the "schwerpunkt" should perhaps be the mining
of asteroids. Platinum is BTW "schwer" with a density of 21.46. Google
by contrast has as its main interest in the application of AI for
searching. Recently one of the Google team has married someone who
owns a biotech company. Thus although the Google interest is in
searching they now have a much wider interest of DNA, DNA therapies
etc.

I think it is important for us to take a look at where everyone is
coming from. We can see the Google motive, the motive of the new NASA
management. What I can't see is where the military are coming from.
The only thing I can think of is that the gravy train both for the
military and for manned spaceflight is about to dry up.

I will repeat. A manned trip to Mars WITH PRESENT DAY TECHNOLOGY is
the craziest scheme out.


- Ian Parker
  #187  
Old February 23rd 09, 12:49 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Americans - Insane in the Membrane



Ian Parker wrote:

I think it is important for us to take a look at where everyone is
coming from.


Ian, most people _know_ where you're coming from...and,
being sensible sorts, they don't wish to go there.

Deirdre
  #188  
Old February 23rd 09, 02:27 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Americans - Insane in the Membrane

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
:
:My guess is that this particular think-challenged soul is the
:sort who will interrupt and disrupt any discussion that takes
lace without him...rather like having a toddler in the room.
:

So you know our Ian Parker, do you? That's precisely what this
particular Artificial Stupidity System (A.S.S.) known locally as 'Ian
Parker' does. It will try to hijack any discussion, inject its own
loony spew, then claim that nobody else wants a 'serious discussion'
when his loonytoon views are rightly pilloried.

Note that I posted the same serious response TWICE to his "we should
go after asteroidal platinum" tirade and we've seen no response. Note
that he's been asked multiple times for his list of professional
publications or even a list of "scientific conferences" he's presented
at, with a deafening silence the only response.

Dealing with Ian Parker is what some police departments refer to as an
NHI situation - No Human Involved.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #189  
Old February 23rd 09, 02:54 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Americans - Insane in the Membrane

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 23 Feb, 12:03, jmfbahciv [email protected] wrote:
: Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
:
: jmfbahciv wrote:
:
: That's really too bad. *You could have had a really interesting
: thread here yakking with Ms. Douglas.
:
: I don't think that was ever an option with Ian...he
: makes outrageous statements...a veritable tsunami
: of prose...but when it's pointed out to him that said
: statements are flawed, instead of defending or sup-
: porting his claims scientifically, he takes off on an
: obfuscating tangent and/or attacks the person
: challenging him.
:
: IMHO, the only thing interesting here is his conceit
: of himself.
:
: Some inane posts produce interesting discussions because other
: readers get curious and start posting, leaving the ahem
: think-challenged behind.
:
:
:The real interest in this, I mean to sensible poaters not the "beni Al-
:kalb", is in terms of the Singularity University. What it is doing,
:why NASA is involved, why Google is involved. Can the SU advance
:technology?
:

Well, let's look at this 'sensible' remark by Ian.

What is it doing? Nothing so far.

Why is NASA involved? It isn't, except as a landlord.

Why is Google involved? Because they've gotten way more than $250,000
in publicity out of a miniscule investment.

Can the SU advance technology? Anything is possible, but I wouldn't
hold my breath waiting for it. It seems long on touchy feely vision
and short on actually touchable output.

:
:The SU is offerering short graduate courses. No doubt these are going
:to be open for NASA/Google employees. I have one coment that anyone
:reading this thread will have.
:

No doubt they'll be open to anyone willing to pony up the
preposterously high fees required to take them.

:
:If I work for Google what I will learn at the SU will be respected and
ut into practice in some way or other. No real doubt about that.
:

LOTS of doubt about that, Ian. Just what do you think said
hypothetical Google employee would learn? Be specific.

:
:I
:though I work for NASA will a layer or "bin(t) Al-kalb" moronity make
:it a black mark against me? This to me is a real question.
:

Lots of silly things are, to you, "a real question".

:
:Another
:real question in the wider political arena is the loyalty that Obama
:can command in the military.
:

You really don't understand the US system at all, do you, Ian. The
military isn't 'loyal' to a particular person. They're loyal to the
US Constitution.

:
:You see I don't think all this fact is
:directed exclusively to me.
:

Are we all ready for the paranoid delusions now?

:
:Obama has produced a "stimulus package" and has talked at the same
:time about narrowing the budget deficit (about 10% of GDP currently)
:
:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/92d8a656-d...nclick_check=1
:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...t-1629344.html
:
:Where is the money coming from? Taxes on wealthy, closing of hedge
:fund loopholes etc. etc. No my friend there is only one large untapped
:source and that is MILITARY SPENDING. He has not spelled it out in as
:many words, but that is as inevitable as night follows day.
:

What's that got to do with anything, Ian? It's wrong, but let's
disregard that for a moment. What does this little interlude have to
do with anything?

Hint: The Defense Budget is around $600 billion. You could eliminate
it entirely and not get the amount Obama says he's going to shrink the
deficit by.

:
:Will the SU produce really useful results? I am sure it will in a
:number of areas.
:

Of course you are, and for no particular reason you can name or
identify. You DO understand that SU does no research, right? You DO
understand that it doesn't teach any real courses, right?

:
:NASA must have a "schwerpunkt" a point of reference,
:a main program.
:

I'd suggest you need to not use terms like "schwerpunkt" when you do
not know what the word means.

:
:I think the "schwerpunkt" should perhaps be the mining
f asteroids.
:

I've already posted in detail (twice) why this is a bad idea.

:
:Platinum is BTW "schwer" with a density of 21.46.
:

Go look up "schwer". It has nothing to do with density. If it did,
you would be quite "schwer", since you are quite dense. But you're
not. You're merely weak and loony.

:
:Google
:by contrast has as its main interest in the application of AI for
:searching. Recently one of the Google team has married someone who
wns a biotech company. Thus although the Google interest is in
:searching they now have a much wider interest of DNA, DNA therapies
:etc.
:

I think it's time for another A.S.S. reset, Ian. You're making even
less sense than usual.

:
:I think it is important for us to take a look at where everyone is
:coming from. We can see the Google motive, the motive of the new NASA
:management. What I can't see is where the military are coming from.
:The only thing I can think of is that the gravy train both for the
:military and for manned spaceflight is about to dry up.
:

Yes, we can see the Google motive - publicity.

Yes, we can see the NASA motive - rental income.

Yes, we can see that you're blind and can't see anything real, so have
to come up with loony remarks to 'cover'.

:
:I will repeat. A manned trip to Mars WITH PRESENT DAY TECHNOLOGY is
:the craziest scheme out.
:

Ian, repetition without reason or support merely makes you look even
loonier than we all know that you are.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #190  
Old February 23rd 09, 02:58 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Valeev is by no means the worst offender

Third time is the charm.

Ian is still going on and on about platinum mining in the asteroids.
Ian still has not responded to this post, which is now being put up
for the third time.

For someone who claims to want rational discussion, Ian Parker is real
short on the 'rational' part and his idea of 'discussion' apparently
means that he spews what he wants and disregards anything anyone posts
pointing out that he's wrong.

Ian claims not to have seen the following, so I thought I'd submit it
again. The very first paragraph demonstrates Ian's ignorance of fuel
cell technologies and it's downhill from there.

Personally, I think Ian claims not to have seen it because if he
admitted to seeing it he would have to respond to the questions raised
in it and he is simply unable to do that.

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:Actually I would have a number od selling pitches. The first of these
:would be Platinum. Mr. Obama - you want green cars. A fuel cell
:demands a platinum catalyst.
:

No it doesn't. Use an alkali anion exchange membrane and replace the
platinum with nickel. What would you like to use your other nine
minutes and forty-five seconds for? I hope whatever it is is better
informed than this.

:
:Lithium - well that powers electronics
:but there ain't enough lithium for cars. Imagine every car in the
:world with a hydrogen fuel cell. Figure too that in a developing world
:there will be many more cars. Is there platinum? I don't think there
:is. What you need therefore is for NASA to be given a priority in
:emergent technology. That priority should be PLATINUM.
:

Asteroid mining is too far out. You need a nearer term goal. There
is also the problem of cost. If you go straight from nothing to
platinum mining in the asteroids you need to show cost recovery
numbers that include all your development costs plus launch costs plus
equipment costs plus....

Now price your platinum. You'll find that there's no way you can sell
it at the prices you'd have to charge for it.

:
:Now asteroids are the richest source of Pt. The abundance on Earth is
:the same, but it is all in the center of the Earth - not very
:accessible. Genetic engineering, nanotech. This approach could help
:you to get it.
:

So might magic and wishing real hard, Ian. Just how does "genetic
engineering, nanotech" help you in getting to the point of asteroid
mining for costs that aren't preposterously higher than those on
earth? You must be specific. That it "could" just doesn't cut any
ice in a real discussion.

What do you need? How does it help? What's the development timeline?
Why is it better than other paths?

And I DON'T mean your usual gibberish about nonexistent technologies.

:
:SSP - can be sold but I think Platinum should be the number one. This
:is what I was hoping someone or other would say. One you have an
:asteroid with galleries (technical mining term) you can then think
:about human spaceflight in the linger term. Galleries give wonderful
:radiation protection.
:

That's not how you'd mine asteroidal platinum, Ian. There wouldn't be
any 'galleries'. What's the radiation flux that far out? Why do you
think you need massive rock shielding to block it?

SSP is closer to practicality than mining platinum in the asteroids
and it isn't quite economically viable, either.

:
:This is what people really should have been saying. I was in fact
:hoping someone else would come out with that before I did.
:

Answer the preceding issues. I think you're obviously wrong, which
you will learn for yourself if you run the numbers involved. I
suspect no one has "come out with that before you did" because they
know that wanting to leap from essentially nothing to platinum mining
in the asteroids is a silly and unworkable idea, no matter what 'magic
technologies' you care to imagine.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Valeev is by no means the worst offender Ian Parker Policy 280 March 3rd 09 03:27 PM
~ * Morning Wood means Ways & Means, Too ~ ! Twittering One Misc 0 May 2nd 05 06:58 AM
Copyright means NOTHING in the real world ( GPL means NOTHING in Germany!) Kelsey Bjarnason Space Shuttle 0 August 11th 03 03:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.