Cleaning up an old table saw

Larry Jaques wrote:

>
> The East Coast is one big city, as is the greater San Angeles area
> here on the Left Coast. You've never been rural so you don't know.

That's what so many people think - until they see the area. Oh - we are
very rural here. My "lot" that my house sits on is 20 acres and it's all
woods. When I first built my house my nearest neighbor was 1/2 mile up the
road. Not so now, but... Grew up on 400 acres of dairy farm - though those
things are pretty much a thing of the past now. To the contrary, I've never
been urban - or even suburban for that matter.

>
>
>> BTW - how much can I sue you for? Maybe we can cut a deal...
>
> Right now I'm worth about a plugged nickel. Halvsies?

Sure - no sense getting greedy. Found money is found money.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:07:18 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:37:12 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:45:34 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Were the parents Professors or school teachers? Profs make more.
>>>
>>> Larry - please read... see the word "teachers" in the above
>>> paragraph? Note also that my DIL started out at $45K. That should
>>> have made sense in the context of retired teachers making double
>>> that.
>>
>> I did read but people use words carelessly, so I checked. So sue me.
>> I'm in a small, rural part of Oregon and you're over in the big city.
>> Salaries are a bit different in the two places.
>
>Come on Larry - I have repeated stated that I am in Central NY. The big
>city you speak of is Syracuse. We are very rural around here - we are not
>NYC - note the use of NY and not the use of NYC. We are one of the lowest
>income areas of our state. We probably are not so different from where you
>live. Maybe you should not have assumed what "NY" meant...

The East Coast is one big city, as is the greater San Angeles area
here on the Left Coast. You've never been rural so you don't know.


>BTW - how much can I sue you for? Maybe we can cut a deal...

Right now I'm worth about a plugged nickel. Halvsies?

--
Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:52:16 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> Well I know for sure that what comes out of the college automotive
>> repair course today is roughly equivalent (being generous) to what
>> graduated from a good Ontario technical secondary school in 1969
>
>So - talk about that a bit Clare. I am not disputing you at all. I am
>curious though because as a guy who has stayed abreast of all kinds of
>automotive repairs over the years - both body work and mechanical work
>(though not as a profession), the first thing that came into my mind was the
>thought that there is no way we could compare 1969 to today. Cars have
>changed too much in those years. The manner of diagnosing and repairing is
>not even remotely similar.
>
>I suspect that what comes out of automotive college today is indeed a lesser
>mechanic, and more of a parts changer than what came out in 1969, but that'
>also very reflective of automotive technology. Not sure I can lay that at
>the doorstep of the graduates, or the schools.


Well, as a former automotive instructor, mechanic, and service
manager I can tell you that diagnosis today is no harder or easier
than it was in 1969. It was just a whole lot different.
Today's troubleshooting is actually EASIER to teach and learn.
Electronics are more or less self diagnosing - and everything is
logical. Logic can be taught.
Hydraulic computers in early automatics are a whole lot more
difficult to diagnose and understand than the digitally controlled
electronic transmissions of today. The mechanicals have not changed
that much.

When I graduated from high school with a double major in auto
mechanics on '69 I could read a scope and understand what it meant to
diagnose ignition, fuel, and engine mechanical condition.
I could check, repair, and adjust most of the different carburetors
in use, and I could tear down and rebuild an engine - from one end to
the other - including the required machine-work.
Brakes, suspension, steering, alignment, clutches, and transmissions
were all part of my everyday work during my apprenticeship. I didn't
do much automatic work because it required special tools the boss did
not want to invest in - there were a few good tranny shops around that
we could farm out that work to and make some money on.

I could do - and did - anything the licenced mechanic in the shop did.

The 16 weeks of trade school that were required for my apprenticeship
(I was excused from basic (8 weeks) for having the double major, and
my marks) was basically review and a refresher. In 2 1/2 years I
finished my apprenticeship


Two years later I was teaching in a local highschool - less than 5
years after graduation - and half a year later teaching in a trade
school.


Ten years later, as a service manager at a dealership I had to hire
apprentices - and even at that point what was coming out of the
secondary schools was definitely an inferior product. The "average"
first term apprentice didn't earn his keep.
The equipment in the highschool auto shops had not been updated in the
ensuing 15 years. Most still even had the same engines in the shop for
the students to work on. The shop I was trained in still had the 235
inch Chevy engines and the 1953 Ford chassis, and the SAME Sun scope
and distributor machine - and alignment rack.

The highschool I taught in still had the same 1963 Chevy chassis and
the same 313 Chrysler V8 engines along with the couple of early
seventies import engines we aquired back then (Datsun 510, 2T Toyota,
1600 Ford Kent etc) and the same diagnostic equipment.

Today, at EDSS where I graduated in 1969, the SAME equipment is still
there (some of it, anyway - and what is no longer there has not been
replaced) It is now "transportation technology" and instead of
rebuilding engines, doing alignments, and learning state-of-the-art
diagnostics, they are making go-carts and motorized skate boards - the
kind of thing i and my friends were doing in our spare time in our
early teens. A friend of mine is teaching there, and his hands are
tied by the school board and the department of education.

I'm out of the business now - but my kid brother - 5 years younger, is
still in the business and by the time he gets an apprentice through
the intermediate level they are - if he's lucky - able to handle the
work that comes into the shop - but cannot, generally, make a decision
on how to tackle something different if their life depended on it.
Diagnostics??? Heck - even when the code scanner tells them what is
WRONG they cannot reason out what the cause is.

For instance - the scanner reports an intermittent miss, or a low
oxygen content in the exhaust, or whatever - they can't figure out if
the engine is running too rich or too lean - or why.

A car has a steering pull. They have a hard time figuring out what to
do to compensate - the camber is off a half degree on one side. What
can they do to the caster on the other side to get rid of the pull?
etc.

Those basics were taught to US in high school. And we didn't have the
computerized alignment machines that calibrate themselves and print
out the measurements with almost absolute precision.
Centering a steering wheel today is child's play because you can see
in real time what the absolute toe is on each side - while we had to
estimate how far off it was, and in each direction - make the
adjustment and then remeasure to see if you had it right. The only
know to know FOR SURE was to drive the car.
Today you can KNOW - FOR SURE that the wheel is centered before it
leaves the rack - and you KNOW the vehicle is or is not tracking 100%.

Other than the fact there is a lot more jammed into a lot less space
on today's cars and you can't fix them with fence-wire - they are
actually EASIER to fix - in most ways, than the cars of the late
seventies and early eighties. - and not a whole lot more difficult in
many ways than the cars of the sixties.

Some of the apprentices now do all their "schooling" at community
colleges before being sprung on the workplace - their theoretical
knowlege is about equal to what my graduating class left highschool
with - but they have extremely limited hands-on experience in
comparison.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:07:18 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:37:12 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:45:34 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Were the parents Professors or school teachers? Profs make more.
>>>
>>> Larry - please read... see the word "teachers" in the above
>>> paragraph? Note also that my DIL started out at $45K. That should
>>> have made sense in the context of retired teachers making double
>>> that.
>>
>> I did read but people use words carelessly, so I checked. So sue me.
>> I'm in a small, rural part of Oregon and you're over in the big city.
>> Salaries are a bit different in the two places.
>
>Come on Larry - I have repeated stated that I am in Central NY. The big
>city you speak of is Syracuse. We are very rural around here - we are not
>NYC - note the use of NY and not the use of NYC. We are one of the lowest
>income areas of our state. We probably are not so different from where you
>live. Maybe you should not have assumed what "NY" meant...

The East Coast is one big city, as is the greater San Angeles area
here on the Left Coast. You've never been rural so you don't know.
===========================================================
You don't really believe that, do you?

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:45:34 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Were the parents Professors or school teachers? Profs make more.

Larry - please read... see the word "teachers" in the above paragraph? Note
also that my DIL started out at $45K. That should have made sense in the
context of retired teachers making double that.

>
>
>
> Amen! I guess the state thinks that parental donations directly to
> the school and/or the sports programs more than make up for the lack
> of teaching and teachers, somehow.

I guess we are lucky here - though parents think sports are oh-so important,
the state and the districts do no place the same importance on them. Sports
are quickly cut here and we've had years where parents "suffered" pay to
play. Good for that plan!

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:45:34 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>
>> Um, someone tell Mike about the No Child Left Behind laws.
>
>Show me the No Child Left Behind Law that specifies that all students will
>be taught to the lowest common denominator. What are the penalties for
>violating this law?
>
>> They're
>> what predicated the change to LCD teaching.
>
>Go back and read what I wrote again. I stated that this whole LCD thing
>does not exist in my area, as it is thrown about in forums like this.
>Perhaps things are different where you live - I never spoke to anything but
>the area where I live.
>
>> And someone find the
>> persons responsible for putting more money into the architecture of
>> school buildings, the sports programs, and the administrator salaries
>> than that of the teachers. And make them pay for their crimes against
>> humanity.
>
>We would not disagree too much on that point, but that's pretty much the way
>it's always been. Teachers who have been at it for a while though, do make
>very good money around here. My daughter-in-laws parents were both teachers
>and both retired at over $100K. They weren't hurting for compensation. My
>DIL started right off at $45K - not a bad starting pay for 9 months worth of
>work.

Were the parents Professors or school teachers? Profs make more.


>> My neighbor's son was a high school Principal and tried to save
>> teachers after funding cuts by removing the funding for the athletics
>> department. The -state- jumped in and said he _must_ fund the dept.
>> This was not the PE classes, but the -volunteer- sports programs. He
>> thought that if enough parents wanted the sports, they could fund 'em
>> themselves. The state told him differently. <thud>
>
>That is what's criminal.

Amen! I guess the state thinks that parental donations directly to
the school and/or the sports programs more than make up for the lack
of teaching and teachers, somehow.

--
Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

On 2/14/2012 5:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 2/14/2012 12:48 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>> Well - we never disagreed on the value of science. I'm only
>>> challenging the use of the term "scientific" as thrown about here.
>>
>> I can only speak to the extent of my participation in this thread, but
>> I'll certainly try to see your point ...
>>
>> But first point me to where the term "scientific", and/or an attempt
>> at a definition, was "thrown about" in this thread before you brought
>> the term up?

> Found it. I was responding to a post from Han. Here it is...
> Han wrote:
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> The science is on my side!
>>
>> That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
>> question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
>> least one who is on the side of science.

~ First:

That is neither the term "scientific" to which you specifically took
exception, nor an attempt at a definition thereof. See yours above with
regard to challenging the specific word, to the point of putting it in
quotes.

~ Second:

Han took the quote entirely out of context, and by doing so left out the
humor/joke completely.

Here is the quote in context:

On 2/14/2012 9:57 AM, Swingman wrote:

> I simply do not recall a "cold front" ever being the cause, but hey,
> it wouldn't be the first time I wore shorts and t-shirt in 30 degree
> weather without noticing the cold.
>
> ... but that STILL doesn't explain why, <drumroll>:
>
> The _science_ is on _my_ side!
>
> <g,d &r>

IOW ... it OBVIOUSLY was NOT meant to be taken seriously. :)

But understandable that, absent the context, you did.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

> Do you remember the day you and I were working in your garage and a cold
> front blew in at the end of the day. You Iron had condensation all over
> it before we quit. We had to dry it off and you ended having lite rust.

Yep, I remember the incident, well. LOL. It was at Ruskin, and I remember
the cause was opening the shop door, when it had been cooler the day
before, onto a foggy, relatively warmer morning. I also remember being
pissed because I had not covered the tools the night before with those
special covers that I have for that exact situation, a weather report that
calls for much warmer, foggy conditions the next morning. :)

--
www.ewoodshop.com

On 2/15/2012 12:41 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:


> As it relates to this thread - that got off target. I never intended to
> suggest or imply a question about condensation or sublimation, etc. Hell -
> I never once took exception to any of those. Again - my response was in
> reply to Han's statement - not to yours.
>
> Beauty and meaning are both in the eye of the beholder, so let me just say
> that you misunderstood what I was trying to say in my reply to Han. I was
> not talking about condensation when I replied to Han.

I misunderstood? LOL Only because Han was indeed talking about
"condensation" when he replied to my post, and there was no indication
that you had arbitrarily changed the subject when replying to him before
flatly stating "Bullshit!"

Hey, that's what discussion is about ... trying to to find a common
ground and remove grounds for misunderstanding.

So take this series of posts in that context. :)

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:44:25 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> The greatest minds of
>> our scientific community world wide, have widely differing beliefs on
>> things, so how can a woodworkers newsgroup even pretend to use the
>> word "scientific" in regards to any discussion in this forum?
>
> What do their beliefs have to do with their theories? I hope you're
> not one of those who sees no difference.

They have a lot to do with their theories if they believe in their own
theories. Those great minds are people just like everyone else and they are
subject to the same things as everyone else. I believe we've all seen
enough of the zealot in the scientific community on all sides of any theory,
to suggest that they are immune to human tendancies. That's part of what
makes heated scientific debates what they are. It's not all cold, objective
facts.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Kerry Montgomery wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:40:18 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since when did the word theory become virtually a fact? Unless
>>>> you have a new defintion of terms, the word theory has never been
>>>> accpeted as any kind of a fact.
>>>
>>> Well ....
>>>
>>> the reference Swingman gave defines theory as:
>>>
>>> "A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a
>>> substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of
>>> observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or
>>> investigation." I'd say that places it a lot closer to a fact than to an
>>> opinion or
>>> belief. Those are often not supported by much of anything :-).
>>
>> I'll certainly relinquish the use of the word "belief" (perhaps a
>> poorly chosen word earlier...), but even Swing's text above does not
>> make a theory virtually a fact - regardless of how close it may
>> appear to be. --
>>
>> -Mike-
>> [email protected]
>>
> Mike,
> I agree with you that Swingman's text above does not make a theory
> virtually a fact. A theory is not virtually a fact, it is as Swingman
> stated.

Correct - review the thread above for context.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 2/14/2012 11:44 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Han wrote:


>> That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
>> question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
>> least one who is on the side of science.
>>
>
> So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what does it mean
> to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase comes from
> people who are not really all that scientific in their approach, but rather
> like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With all of the
> dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole concept of
> peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific" has any
> real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific community world
> wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so how can a woodworkers
> newsgroup even pretend to use the word "scientific" in regards to any
> discussion in this forum? To take a phrase from m II - Bullshit.

Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter" (which
were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by woodworkers,
woodworkers with science degrees, among other things, and contrary to
your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case stands for "science"
<g>) are well understood and pretty universally "accepted science" for
the past few hundred years... at least, so far.

Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze your
food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other things.

I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ... :)

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 02/14/2012 06:31 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote:
>> "Han"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 2/14/2012 3:45 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I thought about that a LONGGG time. And this is my hypothesis: It
>>>>> had been a hot, Houston and sweaty type of day. You had the doors
>>>>> open and the front came through. It got cold(er) and you, Leon,
>>>>> closed the doors, but both you and Karl were so sweaty that you
>>>>> instantly caused the ambient (absolute) humidity to increase beyond
>>>>> the dewpoint at the "iron" as you called it. Of course the effects
>>>>> of beverages consumed is unknown to me ...
>>>>
>>>> Except of course, it was morning and a warm foggy front, after a cold
>>>> night. LOL
>>>>
>>>>> As soon as you both get to Fair Lawn, I'll treat you to a few in the
>>>>> Dutch House<http://www.dutchhousetavern.com/>. Alternatively, I'll
>>>>> treat you as soon as I get to Houston ...
>>>>
>>>> You're on ... you know how to find us. And bring Marlow with you, the
>>>> boy needs some "scientifically" prepared food and beverage.
>>>
>>> My "as soon as I get to Houston" is unlikely to be soon ... Marlow is
>>> on
>>> his own, I don't really know him, ...
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards
>>> Han
>>> email address is invalid
>>
>> An alternate theory: The air in the shop was warm, and saturated with
>> moisture. When the cold air arrived, it dropped the temperature of the
>> air
>> in the shop enough that it could no longer hold as much moisture as
>> before.
>> That moisture precipitated out onto horizontal surfaces in the shop.
>> Kerry
>> email address is valid
>>
>>
>
> Warm air saturated with moisture? Any air saturated with moisture?
>
> - Doug in Arizona
>
>
> --
> "Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
> gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of
> misery" -Winston Churchill

Doug in Arizona,
I was theorizing that the air in the shop was saturated with moisture, and
warmer than the air arriving. Warmer air can hold more moisture than colder
air can.
Kerry

Swingman wrote:

>
> Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter"
> (which were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by
> woodworkers, woodworkers with science degrees, among other things,

Agreed - except that my point was that among the most elite of the
scientific minds within any discipline, there is disagreement. So - here's
these greatest of minds, with the fullness of their educations, and they
somehow do no agree on theories, and ideas. How then can a group of
woodworkers that even with their professional background (which are
generally not in that elite realm), expect to define "scientific" in any
better way? When the best of the best use "scientific" processes to defend
their positions, and find themselves in disagreement, how can this forum
hope to achieve any better? And then someone comes up with the phrase that
this is "scientific" - BS. On which side of the argument? Both sides use
science to defend their position.

> and contrary to your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case
> stands for "science" <g>) are well understood and pretty universally
> "accepted science" for the past few hundred years... at least, so far.

Science is by no means understood universally. If it were, there would not
be contradictory theories within the real of scientific study. The
scientific community is in no way in complete accord. Methinks we throw
this word "scientific" around way too loosely. We tend to use it in attempt
to defend our own position with no regard to how much discord there is
within the true world of scientific discourse.

>
> Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze
> your food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other
> things.

Well - we never disagreed on the value of science. I'm only challenging the
use of the term "scientific" as thrown about here.

>
> I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ... :)

Me too - but that was not my point.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Swingman wrote:

>
> And "methinks" you paint with too broad a brush, and perhaps miss some
> important distinctions in scientific methods and terminology. While
> there is always someone around who will *hypothesize* that the world
> is flat, there is ample *empirical evidence*, and very little
> "scientific discourse" and "discord", that this is NOT the case. :)
>
> As I alluded to previously, many of the various *theories* and *laws*
> on states of matter with regard to liquids, gases and solids (and more
> specifically "condensation", "sublimation", etc - as discussed in this
> thread), have the benefit of centuries of *empirical evidence*, and
> upon whose shoulders entire branches of science are founded,
> specifically do not fit into your above supposition of being in the
> realm of "much discord" in "scientific discourse".

You and I are in more agreement than you may think, as it relates to
theories and laws. I was only trying to point out that even within the
esteemed scientific community, there is indeed a great deal of zeal and
unproven belief which results in a huge amount of discord and that cannot be
denied - just look at competing therories on various topics. Not all are
completely objective.

As it relates to this thread - that got off target. I never intended to
suggest or imply a question about condensation or sublimation, etc. Hell -
I never once took exception to any of those. Again - my response was in
reply to Han's statement - not to yours.

Beauty and meaning are both in the eye of the beholder, so let me just say
that you misunderstood what I was trying to say in my reply to Han. I was
not talking about condensation when I replied to Han.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:40:18 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> Since when did the word theory become virtually a fact? Unless you
>> have a new defintion of terms, the word theory has never been
>> accpeted as any kind of a fact.
>
> Well ....
>
> the reference Swingman gave defines theory as:
>
> "A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a
> substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of
> observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation."
>
> I'd say that places it a lot closer to a fact than to an opinion or
> belief. Those are often not supported by much of anything :-).

I'll certainly relinquish the use of the word "belief" (perhaps a poorly
chosen word earlier...), but even Swing's text above does not make a theory
virtually a fact - regardless of how close it may appear to be.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Swingman wrote:
> On 2/14/2012 12:48 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> Well - we never disagreed on the value of science. I'm only
>> challenging the use of the term "scientific" as thrown about here.
>
> I can only speak to the extent of my participation in this thread, but
> I'll certainly try to see your point ...
>
> But first point me to where the term "scientific", and/or an attempt
> at a definition, was "thrown about" in this thread before you brought
> the term up?
>
> Thanks ...

Found it. I was responding to a post from Han. Here it is...
Han wrote:
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> The science is on my side!
>
> That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
> question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
> least one who is on the side of science.
>

So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what does it mean
to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase comes from
people who are not really all that scientific in their approach, but rather
like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With all of the
dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole concept of
peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific" has any
real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific community world
wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so how can a woodworkers
newsgroup even pretend to use the word "scientific" in regards to any
discussion in this forum? To take a phrase from m II - Bullshit.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Kerry Montgomery wrote:

>
> Mike,
> Sorry, I had misattributed that bit.
> Kerry

It happens. The only time that really has ever bothered me was when it was
associated with the phrase "I'm pregnant..."

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

HeyBub wrote:

>
> Your post shows a distinct misunderstanding of scientific terminology.
>
> In science, the word "theory" is NOT speculation, guesswork, or
> probability. A scientific theory is virtually a fact, as in "The
> Theory of Universal Gravitation," or "The Theory of Electricity," or
> the "Theory of Conservation of Energy."
>

I do not work in the field of science but as I understand things, your
statement above is pure bullshit. A theory is an unproven idea in the world
of science. I even googled it, so I know it's right, because it's on the
internet!

Since when did the word theory become virtually a fact? Unless you have a
new defintion of terms, the word theory has never been accpeted as any kind
of a fact.


> After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without
> any contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law",

Only if you want to assume things without the underlying understanding of
whether that assumption is correct, or if it can be affected by other
factors not yet considered.


> as in "The Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side
> Down." In fact, "Theory" and "Law" are often interchangable.

Oh please... are you really a scientist?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Leon" wrote
>
>But I instantly recalled that odd incident in Swingman's garage and that
>prompted my jerk knee response.
>
"odd incident"??

Perhaps an argument could be made that Swingman's garage exists in an
alternate universe and the normal laws of physics don't apply there. ;-)
It would explain some things that go on there.

On 02/14/2012 06:31 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote:
> "Han"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 2/14/2012 3:45 PM, Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> I thought about that a LONGGG time. And this is my hypothesis: It
>>>> had been a hot, Houston and sweaty type of day. You had the doors
>>>> open and the front came through. It got cold(er) and you, Leon,
>>>> closed the doors, but both you and Karl were so sweaty that you
>>>> instantly caused the ambient (absolute) humidity to increase beyond
>>>> the dewpoint at the "iron" as you called it. Of course the effects
>>>> of beverages consumed is unknown to me ...
>>>
>>> Except of course, it was morning and a warm foggy front, after a cold
>>> night. LOL
>>>
>>>> As soon as you both get to Fair Lawn, I'll treat you to a few in the
>>>> Dutch House<http://www.dutchhousetavern.com/>. Alternatively, I'll
>>>> treat you as soon as I get to Houston ...
>>>
>>> You're on ... you know how to find us. And bring Marlow with you, the
>>> boy needs some "scientifically" prepared food and beverage.
>>
>> My "as soon as I get to Houston" is unlikely to be soon ... Marlow is on
>> his own, I don't really know him, ...
>>
>> --
>> Best regards
>> Han
>> email address is invalid
>
> An alternate theory: The air in the shop was warm, and saturated with
> moisture. When the cold air arrived, it dropped the temperature of the air
> in the shop enough that it could no longer hold as much moisture as before.
> That moisture precipitated out onto horizontal surfaces in the shop.
> Kerry
> email address is valid
>
>

Warm air saturated with moisture? Any air saturated with moisture?

- Doug in Arizona


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 02/14/2012 11:16 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote:
> "Doug Winterburn"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 02/14/2012 06:31 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote:
>>> "Han"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/14/2012 3:45 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought about that a LONGGG time. And this is my hypothesis: It
>>>>>> had been a hot, Houston and sweaty type of day. You had the doors
>>>>>> open and the front came through. It got cold(er) and you, Leon,
>>>>>> closed the doors, but both you and Karl were so sweaty that you
>>>>>> instantly caused the ambient (absolute) humidity to increase beyond
>>>>>> the dewpoint at the "iron" as you called it. Of course the effects
>>>>>> of beverages consumed is unknown to me ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Except of course, it was morning and a warm foggy front, after a cold
>>>>> night. LOL
>>>>>
>>>>>> As soon as you both get to Fair Lawn, I'll treat you to a few in the
>>>>>> Dutch House<http://www.dutchhousetavern.com/>. Alternatively, I'll
>>>>>> treat you as soon as I get to Houston ...
>>>>>
>>>>> You're on ... you know how to find us. And bring Marlow with you, the
>>>>> boy needs some "scientifically" prepared food and beverage.
>>>>
>>>> My "as soon as I get to Houston" is unlikely to be soon ... Marlow is
>>>> on
>>>> his own, I don't really know him, ...
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Han
>>>> email address is invalid
>>>
>>> An alternate theory: The air in the shop was warm, and saturated with
>>> moisture. When the cold air arrived, it dropped the temperature of the
>>> air
>>> in the shop enough that it could no longer hold as much moisture as
>>> before.
>>> That moisture precipitated out onto horizontal surfaces in the shop.
>>> Kerry
>>> email address is valid
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Warm air saturated with moisture? Any air saturated with moisture?
>>
>> - Doug in Arizona
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
>> gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of
>> misery" -Winston Churchill
>
> Doug in Arizona,
> I was theorizing that the air in the shop was saturated with moisture, and
> warmer than the air arriving. Warmer air can hold more moisture than colder
> air can.
> Kerry
>
>
Kerry,

I was just joking that in Arizona we don't see much moisture - in the
air or otherwise, although we stared out the window yesterday as
something called a "shower" occurred. :-)



--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 02/14/2012 02:32 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 2/14/2012 12:17 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 2/14/2012 11:44 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Han wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
>>>> question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
>>>> least one who is on the side of science.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what does it
>>> mean
>>> to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase comes
>>> from
>>> people who are not really all that scientific in their approach, but
>>> rather
>>> like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With all of
>>> the
>>> dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole
>>> concept of
>>> peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific" has
>>> any
>>> real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific community
>>> world
>>> wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so how can a woodworkers
>>> newsgroup even pretend to use the word "scientific" in regards to any
>>> discussion in this forum? To take a phrase from m II - Bullshit.
>>
>> Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter" (which
>> were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by woodworkers,
>> woodworkers with science degrees, among other things, and contrary to
>> your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case stands for "science"
>> <g>) are well understood and pretty universally "accepted science" for
>> the past few hundred years... at least, so far.
>>
>> Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze your
>> food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other things.
>>
>> I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ... :)
>>
>
>
> That't it! Thai's what caused the cold front to cause condensation on
> the tools! GLOBAL WARMING!
>
> My nephew's wife swears that Globel Warming is causing global cooling.
> Yup that right you heard that for the first time right here. LOL
>
> It's Butches fault.
>

Well, it's a fact that warming started about 10,000 years ago at the end
of the last ice age and the earth has been warming ever since. As soon
as those mastadon farts are cleared from the atmosphere, we'll probably
experience another ice age. Maybe it's happening now?


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

Han wrote:
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> The _science_ is on _my_ side!
>
> That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
> question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
> least one who is on the side of science.
>

So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what does it mean
to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase comes from
people who are not really all that scientific in their approach, but rather
like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With all of the
dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole concept of
peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific" has any
real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific community world
wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so how can a woodworkers
newsgroup even pretend to use the word "scientific" in regards to any
discussion in this forum? To take a phrase from m II - Bullshit.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 2/14/2012 9:57 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 2/14/2012 7:34 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 2/14/2012 7:28 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you remember the day you and I were working in your garage and a
>>>> cold
>>>> front blew in at the end of the day. You Iron had condensation all over
>>>> it before we quit. We had to dry it off and you ended having lite rust.
>>>
>>> Yep, I remember the incident, well. LOL. It was at Ruskin, and I
>>> remember
>>> the cause was opening the shop door, when it had been cooler the day
>>> before, onto a foggy, relatively warmer morning. I also remember being
>>> pissed because I had not covered the tools the night before with those
>>> special covers that I have for that exact situation, a weather report
>>> that
>>> calls for much warmer, foggy conditions the next morning. :)
>>>
>>
>> That all happened at the end of the day, you and I had been working
>> together. You stayed late to finish drying and protecting the surfaces.
>> And IIRC you bought the covers after that when I pointed to the HTC
>> clearance sale.
>
> OK ... you certainly got me scratching my head.
>
> I distinctly remember having two, weather related, shop rust incidents
> of that nature, one indeed at the Ruskin location... both, in my memory,
> being _immediately upon_ "opening the overhead door".
>
> You sure it was Ruskin ... we moved the equipment there in late Oct/2008?

Yes, It was Ruskin. ;~) I recall seeing all of that on water on the BS
on the right hand side of the garage as I was walking out.

> AAMOF, that combination, to this day, always making me reluctant to open
> the overhead door without checking/being aware of a temperature
> differential, especially after the first time it happened after my 24/7
> wall mounted fan went out at Oberlin, which moved enough air for it to
> not normally be an issue.
>
> I simply do not recall a "cold front" ever being the cause, but hey, it
> wouldn't be the first time I wore shorts and t-shirt in 30 degree
> weather without noticing the cold.

It had been warm and humid all day...till we were wrapping up and the
front blew in.

IIRC I found the HTC covers and the great chop saw stand that you bought
after I saw that issue. ;~)



>
> ... but that STILL doesn't explain why, <drumroll>:
>
> The _science_ is on _my_ side!
>
> <g,d &r>
>

I know it does not make any sense.

On 2/14/2012 3:23 PM, Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Swingman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter"
>>> (which were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by
>>> woodworkers, woodworkers with science degrees, among other things,
>>
>> Agreed - except that my point was that among the most elite of the
>> scientific minds within any discipline, there is disagreement. So -
>> here's these greatest of minds, with the fullness of their educations,
>> and they somehow do no agree on theories, and ideas. How then can a
>> group of woodworkers that even with their professional background
>> (which are generally not in that elite realm), expect to define
>> "scientific" in any better way? When the best of the best use
>> "scientific" processes to defend their positions, and find themselves
>> in disagreement, how can this forum hope to achieve any better? And
>> then someone comes up with the phrase that this is "scientific" - BS.
>> On which side of the argument? Both sides use science to defend their
>> position.
>>
>>> and contrary to your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case
>>> stands for "science"<g>) are well understood and pretty universally
>>> "accepted science" for the past few hundred years... at least, so
>>> far.
>>
>> Science is by no means understood universally. If it were, there
>> would not be contradictory theories within the real of scientific
>> study. The scientific community is in no way in complete accord.
>> Methinks we throw this word "scientific" around way too loosely. We
>> tend to use it in attempt to defend our own position with no regard to
>> how much discord there is within the true world of scientific
>> discourse.
>>
>>>
>>> Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze
>>> your food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other
>>> things.
>>
>> Well - we never disagreed on the value of science. I'm only
>> challenging the use of the term "scientific" as thrown about here.
>>
>>>
>>> I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ... :)
>>
>> Me too - but that was not my point.
>
> I got a PhD in 1976 in biochemistry, from the University of Utrecht with
> Professor Laurens L.M. van Deenen. You can google him, he's dead now.
> That's by way of saying it wasn't from a matchbook cover diploma mill. I
> have also been co-author of many good scientific articles, of which I am
> proud. Look up M.J. Broekman in PubMed.

So with all that knowledge, please explain what happened in Swingman's
garage that afternoon. ;~)

On 2/14/2012 12:17 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 2/14/2012 11:44 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Han wrote:
>
>
>>> That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
>>> question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
>>> least one who is on the side of science.
>>>
>>
>> So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what does it
>> mean
>> to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase comes
>> from
>> people who are not really all that scientific in their approach, but
>> rather
>> like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With all of
>> the
>> dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole
>> concept of
>> peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific" has any
>> real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific community world
>> wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so how can a woodworkers
>> newsgroup even pretend to use the word "scientific" in regards to any
>> discussion in this forum? To take a phrase from m II - Bullshit.
>
> Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter" (which
> were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by woodworkers,
> woodworkers with science degrees, among other things, and contrary to
> your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case stands for "science"
> <g>) are well understood and pretty universally "accepted science" for
> the past few hundred years... at least, so far.
>
> Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze your
> food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other things.
>
> I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ... :)
>


That't it! Thai's what caused the cold front to cause condensation on
the tools! GLOBAL WARMING!

My nephew's wife swears that Globel Warming is causing global cooling.
Yup that right you heard that for the first time right here. LOL

It's Butches fault.

Swingman wrote:

>
> I misunderstood? LOL Only because Han was indeed talking about
> "condensation" when he replied to my post,

Eye of the beholder - I did not see that in Han's reply. Perhaps that's
where the misunderstanding is rooted.


> and there was no indication
> that you had arbitrarily changed the subject when replying to him
> before flatly stating "Bullshit!"

Ummmmm... I do not recall flatly stating "Bullshit". Did I really do that?
BTW - I did never intend to, or even realize or think that I had arbitrarily
changed the subject. Was never the intent. Eye of the beholder?


>
> So take this series of posts in that context. :)

Well - hell yeah...!

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

HeyBub wrote:

>
> In other words, "theory" is as close to facts as one can currently
> get. You can take it to the bank. You can start a religion based on
> it. You can let your sister marry it.
>
> In science, the word "theory" does NOT mean a guess, speculation, or
> even mere possibility.
>
> That's my theory.

Good write up HeyBub - thanks for investing that time. So... I'll ask a
question of what you described in your post. If a theory is as close to a
fact as one can currently get, how does that notion resolve with the issue
of conflicting theories? Isn't Big Bang a theory? Yet, if I understand
correctly, there is at least more than one competing theory. If both (or
all...) are legitimate theories, then the statement that a theoryis as close
to fact as one can currently get, does not make sense.

If I could give other currently popular competing theories (rather than the
Big Bang), I'd do so, but I really don't spend much of my life in this area.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:32:38 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 2/14/2012 12:17 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 2/14/2012 11:44 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Han wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
>>>> question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
>>>> least one who is on the side of science.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what does it
>>> mean
>>> to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase comes
>>> from
>>> people who are not really all that scientific in their approach, but
>>> rather
>>> like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With all of
>>> the
>>> dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole
>>> concept of
>>> peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific" has any
>>> real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific community world
>>> wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so how can a woodworkers
>>> newsgroup even pretend to use the word "scientific" in regards to any
>>> discussion in this forum? To take a phrase from m II - Bullshit.
>>
>> Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter" (which
>> were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by woodworkers,
>> woodworkers with science degrees, among other things, and contrary to
>> your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case stands for "science"
>> <g>) are well understood and pretty universally "accepted science" for
>> the past few hundred years... at least, so far.
>>
>> Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze your
>> food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other things.
>>
>> I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ... :)
>>
>
>
>That't it! Thai's what caused the cold front to cause condensation on
>the tools! GLOBAL WARMING!
>
>My nephew's wife swears that Globel Warming is causing global cooling.
>Yup that right you heard that for the first time right here. LOL
>
>It's Butches fault.
The "correct" term is "climate change"
Her in Ontario we've had a pretty "warm" winter, while eastern Europe
is MUCH colder than normal.
"Climate Change" appears to be causing extremes much more noticeable
than the reported 2? degree average world temperature increase over
how many years?.

Han wrote:

>
> I believe I have responded to that, maybe excessively so.

Yup - and I read it... all of it!

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 2/14/2012 3:32 PM, Leon wrote:

> That't it! Thai's what caused the cold front to cause condensation on
> the tools! GLOBAL WARMING!
>
> My nephew's wife swears that Globel Warming is causing global cooling.
> Yup that right you heard that for the first time right here. LOL
>
> It's Butches fault.


Two times!

ROTFL ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>Han wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, in my book, you can brainstorm an idea, formulate a(n)
>> hypothesis, perform experiments trying to prove the hypothesis, and
>> if supported formulate a theory. Then once totally vetted, tested,
>> and pulled through the wringer, if nothing untowards appears, it
>> becomes "law". Even then you need to be careful, as shown by the
>> recent instance of (not so) random number generation in the RSA
>> algorithm involved in money transactions via the internet.
>
>I agree.
>

To be more precise, the recent issue with RSA factoring related to
weak PRNG implementations was primarily limited to embedded devices
such as routers and gateways. None of the factorable (and they used
a rather clever method using GCD to factor the keys) keys were associated
with any major website, or with any key signed by a trusted certification
authority (e.g. verisign et. al.). It seems the bulk of the bad keys were
generated on embedded devices, when first powered on, when the PRNG hadn't
had enough entropy to guarantee randomness.

On 2/15/2012 1:26 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Han wrote:
>>
>> Not that far-fetched. There is a theory (ahum) that says that if the
>> Arctic gets too ice-free (which may happen with global warming,
>> increases in ocean levels, and changes to ocean circulation, it (the
>> Arctic Ocean) will evaporate so much that it will snow and asnow and
>> snow and another ice-age will result. As I said, a theory ...
>
> Your post shows a distinct misunderstanding of scientific terminology.

And perhaps yours? ... see below

> In science, the word "theory" is NOT speculation, guesswork, or probability.
> A scientific theory is virtually a fact, as in "The Theory of Universal
> Gravitation," or "The Theory of Electricity," or the "Theory of Conservation
> of Energy."
>
> After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without any
> contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law", as in "The
> Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side Down." In fact,
> "Theory" and "Law" are often interchangable.

Not exactly ... there is none of the hierarchy, of a "theory being
elevated to a law" in all scientific disciplines that you imply with the
above statement:

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:40:18 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>> Since when did the word theory become virtually a fact? Unless you
>>> have a new defintion of terms, the word theory has never been
>>> accpeted as any kind of a fact.
>>
>> Well ....
>>
>> the reference Swingman gave defines theory as:
>>
>> "A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a
>> substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of
>> observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation."
>>
>> I'd say that places it a lot closer to a fact than to an opinion or
>> belief. Those are often not supported by much of anything :-).
>
> I'll certainly relinquish the use of the word "belief" (perhaps a poorly
> chosen word earlier...), but even Swing's text above does not make a
> theory virtually a fact - regardless of how close it may appear to be.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
Mike,
I agree with you that Swingman's text above does not make a theory virtually
a fact. A theory is not virtually a fact, it is as Swingman stated.
Kerry

On 2/15/2012 7:17 AM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 02/14/2012 02:32 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 2/14/2012 12:17 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 2/14/2012 11:44 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
>>>>> question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
>>>>> least one who is on the side of science.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what does it
>>>> mean
>>>> to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase comes
>>>> from
>>>> people who are not really all that scientific in their approach, but
>>>> rather
>>>> like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With all of
>>>> the
>>>> dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole
>>>> concept of
>>>> peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific" has
>>>> any
>>>> real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific community
>>>> world
>>>> wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so how can a woodworkers
>>>> newsgroup even pretend to use the word "scientific" in regards to any
>>>> discussion in this forum? To take a phrase from m II - Bullshit.
>>>
>>> Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter" (which
>>> were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by woodworkers,
>>> woodworkers with science degrees, among other things, and contrary to
>>> your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case stands for "science"
>>> <g>) are well understood and pretty universally "accepted science" for
>>> the past few hundred years... at least, so far.
>>>
>>> Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze your
>>> food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other things.
>>>
>>> I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ... :)
>>>
>>
>>
>> That't it! Thai's what caused the cold front to cause condensation on
>> the tools! GLOBAL WARMING!
>>
>> My nephew's wife swears that Globel Warming is causing global cooling.
>> Yup that right you heard that for the first time right here. LOL
>>
>> It's Butches fault.
>>
>
> Well, it's a fact that warming started about 10,000 years ago at the end
> of the last ice age and the earth has been warming ever since. As soon
> as those mastadon farts are cleared from the atmosphere, we'll probably
> experience another ice age. Maybe it's happening now?
>
>
Exactly! Money exploits normal events.

On 2/14/2012 10:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:32:38 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/2012 12:17 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 2/14/2012 11:44 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
>>>>> question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
>>>>> least one who is on the side of science.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what does it
>>>> mean
>>>> to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase comes
>>>> from
>>>> people who are not really all that scientific in their approach, but
>>>> rather
>>>> like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With all of
>>>> the
>>>> dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole
>>>> concept of
>>>> peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific" has any
>>>> real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific community world
>>>> wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so how can a woodworkers
>>>> newsgroup even pretend to use the word "scientific" in regards to any
>>>> discussion in this forum? To take a phrase from m II - Bullshit.
>>>
>>> Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter" (which
>>> were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by woodworkers,
>>> woodworkers with science degrees, among other things, and contrary to
>>> your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case stands for "science"
>>> <g>) are well understood and pretty universally "accepted science" for
>>> the past few hundred years... at least, so far.
>>>
>>> Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze your
>>> food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other things.
>>>
>>> I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ... :)
>>>
>>
>>
>> That't it! Thai's what caused the cold front to cause condensation on
>> the tools! GLOBAL WARMING!
>>
>> My nephew's wife swears that Globel Warming is causing global cooling.
>> Yup that right you heard that for the first time right here. LOL
>>
>> It's Butches fault.
> The "correct" term is "climate change"
> Her in Ontario we've had a pretty "warm" winter, while eastern Europe
> is MUCH colder than normal.
> "Climate Change" appears to be causing extremes much more noticeable
> than the reported 2? degree average world temperature increase over
> how many years?.
>


I believe that if we had data available to us 150 years ago like we do
today and if we lived to be 200 years old and could remember back to our
child hood this "climate change" would be a normal cycle.

Even with crude records and data we have always witnessed summers that
were hotter and cooler than normal for several years in a row and we
have witnessed winters that are colder and warmer than for several years
in a row.

AND because every thing that we are doing to put an end to this "ending
of the world as we know it" is not helping one iota, read that as things
are observed as getting worse faster, we have no clue what causes
extended temperature changes, up or down. Weather extremes? You can
fond worse weather extremes in the past using Google.

I assure you if government was not involved or if there was no money to
be made off of this latest world problem there would not be another word
said about it.

On 2/14/2012 10:25 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:57:47 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/2012 7:34 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 2/14/2012 7:28 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you remember the day you and I were working in your garage and a cold
>>>>> front blew in at the end of the day. You Iron had condensation all over
>>>>> it before we quit. We had to dry it off and you ended having lite rust.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, I remember the incident, well. LOL. It was at Ruskin, and I remember
>>>> the cause was opening the shop door, when it had been cooler the day
>>>> before, onto a foggy, relatively warmer morning. I also remember being
>>>> pissed because I had not covered the tools the night before with those
>>>> special covers that I have for that exact situation, a weather report
>>>> that
>>>> calls for much warmer, foggy conditions the next morning. :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> That all happened at the end of the day, you and I had been working
>>> together. You stayed late to finish drying and protecting the surfaces.
>>> And IIRC you bought the covers after that when I pointed to the HTC
>>> clearance sale.
>>
>> OK ... you certainly got me scratching my head.
>>
>> I distinctly remember having two, weather related, shop rust incidents
>> of that nature, one indeed at the Ruskin location... both, in my memory,
>> being _immediately upon_ "opening the overhead door".
>>
>> You sure it was Ruskin ... we moved the equipment there in late Oct/2008?
>>
>> AAMOF, that combination, to this day, always making me reluctant to open
>> the overhead door without checking/being aware of a temperature
>> differential, especially after the first time it happened after my 24/7
>> wall mounted fan went out at Oberlin, which moved enough air for it to
>> not normally be an issue.
>>
>> I simply do not recall a "cold front" ever being the cause, but hey, it
>> wouldn't be the first time I wore shorts and t-shirt in 30 degree
>> weather without noticing the cold.
>>
>> ... but that STILL doesn't explain why,<drumroll>:
>>
>> The _science_ is on _my_ side!
>>
>> <g,d&r>
> You guys down there in (central?) Florida have a lot of high humidity
> -We get it up here in Central Ontario for a couple of weeks a year -
> and I experienced it a LOT when I was in Zambia. Didn't know you COULD
> have RH over 100% - but under certain conditions it happens - it's not
> raining, or even really "misty" but swing anything through the air at
> any speed and it gets wet (instead of drying off).
> A drop in temperature and everything in the shop got wet -
> particularly if a slight breeze and the shade of the roof kept the
> inside shop temp just below the outside air temperature (Thermal mass
> of concrete shop cooled off over-night and sun on the ground in the
> yard heated the air above - nothing to have air temp out in the yard
> 46C, (115F) and the shop a relatively comfortable 35C (95F) or even
> cooler, then have the clouds and breeze move in and the outside
> temperture drop a few degrees.
>
> With Victoria Falls, the worlds largest humidifier 10 Km down the
> road, October was HELL. The humidity was aproaching 100%, and you
> KNEW it wasn't going to rain for another 6 weeks!!!


I believe you have also witnessed the situation!

On 2/14/2012 7:34 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 2/14/2012 7:28 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you remember the day you and I were working in your garage and a cold
>>> front blew in at the end of the day. You Iron had condensation all over
>>> it before we quit. We had to dry it off and you ended having lite rust.
>>
>> Yep, I remember the incident, well. LOL. It was at Ruskin, and I remember
>> the cause was opening the shop door, when it had been cooler the day
>> before, onto a foggy, relatively warmer morning. I also remember being
>> pissed because I had not covered the tools the night before with those
>> special covers that I have for that exact situation, a weather report
>> that
>> calls for much warmer, foggy conditions the next morning. :)
>>
>
> That all happened at the end of the day, you and I had been working
> together. You stayed late to finish drying and protecting the surfaces.
> And IIRC you bought the covers after that when I pointed to the HTC
> clearance sale.

OK ... you certainly got me scratching my head.

I distinctly remember having two, weather related, shop rust incidents
of that nature, one indeed at the Ruskin location... both, in my memory,
being _immediately upon_ "opening the overhead door".

You sure it was Ruskin ... we moved the equipment there in late Oct/2008?

AAMOF, that combination, to this day, always making me reluctant to open
the overhead door without checking/being aware of a temperature
differential, especially after the first time it happened after my 24/7
wall mounted fan went out at Oberlin, which moved enough air for it to
not normally be an issue.

I simply do not recall a "cold front" ever being the cause, but hey, it
wouldn't be the first time I wore shorts and t-shirt in 30 degree
weather without noticing the cold.

... but that STILL doesn't explain why, <drumroll>:

The _science_ is on _my_ side!

<g,d &r>

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 2/14/2012 9:23 AM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>
> "Leon" wrote
>>
>> But I instantly recalled that odd incident in Swingman's garage and
>> that prompted my jerk knee response.
>>
> "odd incident"??
>
> Perhaps an argument could be made that Swingman's garage exists in an
> alternate universe and the normal laws of physics don't apply there. ;-)
> It would explain some things that go on there.

According to our wives, that's already a given ... in that we think so
much alike that discussing who came up with which idea to do something,
when, and in which order, and one way or another, is a fify fifty tossup. :)

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 2/14/2012 12:48 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

> Well - we never disagreed on the value of science. I'm only challenging the
> use of the term "scientific" as thrown about here.

I can only speak to the extent of my participation in this thread, but
I'll certainly try to see your point ...

But first point me to where the term "scientific", and/or an attempt at
a definition, was "thrown about" in this thread before you brought the
term up?

Thanks ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 02/14/2012 11:16 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote:
>> "Doug Winterburn"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 02/14/2012 06:31 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote:
>>>> "Han"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/14/2012 3:45 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought about that a LONGGG time. And this is my hypothesis: It
>>>>>>> had been a hot, Houston and sweaty type of day. You had the doors
>>>>>>> open and the front came through. It got cold(er) and you, Leon,
>>>>>>> closed the doors, but both you and Karl were so sweaty that you
>>>>>>> instantly caused the ambient (absolute) humidity to increase beyond
>>>>>>> the dewpoint at the "iron" as you called it. Of course the effects
>>>>>>> of beverages consumed is unknown to me ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except of course, it was morning and a warm foggy front, after a cold
>>>>>> night. LOL
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As soon as you both get to Fair Lawn, I'll treat you to a few in the
>>>>>>> Dutch House<http://www.dutchhousetavern.com/>. Alternatively, I'll
>>>>>>> treat you as soon as I get to Houston ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're on ... you know how to find us. And bring Marlow with you, the
>>>>>> boy needs some "scientifically" prepared food and beverage.
>>>>>
>>>>> My "as soon as I get to Houston" is unlikely to be soon ... Marlow is
>>>>> on
>>>>> his own, I don't really know him, ...
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>> Han
>>>>> email address is invalid
>>>>
>>>> An alternate theory: The air in the shop was warm, and saturated with
>>>> moisture. When the cold air arrived, it dropped the temperature of the
>>>> air
>>>> in the shop enough that it could no longer hold as much moisture as
>>>> before.
>>>> That moisture precipitated out onto horizontal surfaces in the shop.
>>>> Kerry
>>>> email address is valid
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Warm air saturated with moisture? Any air saturated with moisture?
>>>
>>> - Doug in Arizona
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> "Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
>>> gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of
>>> misery" -Winston Churchill
>>
>> Doug in Arizona,
>> I was theorizing that the air in the shop was saturated with moisture,
>> and
>> warmer than the air arriving. Warmer air can hold more moisture than
>> colder
>> air can.
>> Kerry
>>
>>
> Kerry,
>
> I was just joking that in Arizona we don't see much moisture - in the air
> or otherwise, although we stared out the window yesterday as something
> called a "shower" occurred. :-)
>
>
>
> --
> "Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
> gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of
> misery" -Winston Churchill

Doug in Arizona,
Ah, got it. You're in the home of "it's a dry heat"
Thanks, sorry for being humor impaired,
Kerry

On 2/16/2012 9:08 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>>> After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without
>>> any contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law",
>>> as in "The Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side
>>> Down." In fact, "Theory" and "Law" are often interchangable.
>>
>> Not exactly ... there is none of the hierarchy, of a "theory being
>> elevated to a law", in all scientific disciplines that you imply with
>> the above statement:
>>
>> http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
>
> The way I learned it corresponds to the following:
>
> "Words have precise meanings in science.

<snip of preaching to the choir>

> In other words, "theory" is as close to facts as one can currently get. You
> can take it to the bank. You can start a religion based on it. You can let
> your sister marry it.

And, as with a "Law", _only_ until evidence is presented that refutes it.

> In science, the word "theory" does NOT mean a guess, speculation, or even
> mere possibility.
>
> That's my theory.

Yabbut, that is not what you originally said ... and there would have
been no argument had that been the case: :)

> After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without
> any contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law",
> as in "The Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side
> Down."

Hell, you even specified a rough time period that it takes for a
"theory" to become a "law". :)

The point always being, there is no hierarchy in rank between a "theory"
and "law".

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Swingman <[email protected]> writes:
>On 2/17/2012 1:08 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Swingman<[email protected]> writes:
>>> On 2/16/2012 10:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, in my book, you can brainstorm an idea, formulate a(n)
>>>>>> hypothesis, perform experiments trying to prove the hypothesis, and
>>>>>> if supported formulate a theory. Then once totally vetted, tested,
>>>>>> and pulled through the wringer, if nothing untowards appears, it
>>>>>> becomes "law". Even then you need to be careful, as shown by the
>>>>>> recent instance of (not so) random number generation in the RSA
>>>>>> algorithm involved in money transactions via the internet.
>>>
>>>> To be more precise, the recent issue with RSA factoring related to
>>>> weak PRNG implementations was primarily limited to embedded devices
>>>> such as routers and gateways.
>>>
>>> See below:
>>>
>>>> None of the factorable (and they used
>>>> a rather clever method using GCD to factor the keys) keys were associated
>>>> with any major website, or with any key signed by a trusted certification
>>>> authority (e.g. verisign et. al.). It seems the bulk of the bad keys were
>>>> generated on embedded devices, when first powered on, when the PRNG hadn't
>>>> had enough entropy to guarantee randomness.
>>>
>>> Been following this on ArsTechnica for awhile.
>>>
>>> And with regard to the above, some argue that this distribution of weak
>>> keys is even of greater concern:
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> "Meanwhile, Hughes, one of the co-writers of the original paper, says he
>>> remains convinced that the weak keys represent a threat to people using
>>> webmail and e-commerce.
>>>
>>> "I hate to say it but this does have implications for web-based commerce
>>> because people can mount man-in-the-middle attacks," he said. "People
>>> know, for instance, there have been man-in-the-middle attacks mounted
>>> against websites by foreign countries. Embedded systems matter to
>>> e-commerce because they're the infrastructure that goes between you and
>>> the site you're trying to go to."
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> While this could be a case of protecting/justifying your initial
>>> assessment, the fact remains that, as you noted above, many of the weak
>>> keys were indeed embedded in routing equipment.
>>
>> However, those keys were primarily SSH keys, not SSL keys, and were used
>> to protect the administration interfaces on said routing equipment. Can't
>> be used for a MIM attack at all, since it is completely orthogonal.
>
><snip of much informative stuff>
>
>So Hughes is indeed all wet?
>

Insofar as e-commerce is concerned, yes. However, a successful attack on the
router/firewall can be quite disruptive to either an organization (assuming
they were stupid enough to allow external traffic to configure their infrastructure;
something most are smart enough _not_ to do) or to the internet in general
(say a core backbone router (ATT, L3, Hurricane Electric, et. al) is compromised;
portions of the net could go dark for a short time).

scott

On 2/14/2012 8:05 AM, Han wrote:
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Maybe you had that happen again but IIRC you had no such covers when we
>> saw it happen at the end of the day.
>
> Hey guys, it's Valentine's day, and I love you both<grin>!
>

And please accept my apologies for that Bull Shit response. I was not
thinking. Seriously I know and agree with what you said about
condensation. But I instantly recalled that odd incident in Swingman's
garage and that prompted my jerk knee response.

On 2/14/2012 3:45 PM, Han wrote:

> I thought about that a LONGGG time. And this is my hypothesis: It had
> been a hot, Houston and sweaty type of day. You had the doors open and
> the front came through. It got cold(er) and you, Leon, closed the doors,
> but both you and Karl were so sweaty that you instantly caused the
> ambient (absolute) humidity to increase beyond the dewpoint at the
> "iron" as you called it. Of course the effects of beverages consumed is
> unknown to me ...

Except of course, it was morning and a warm foggy front, after a cold
night. LOL

> As soon as you both get to Fair Lawn, I'll treat you to a few in the
> Dutch House<http://www.dutchhousetavern.com/>. Alternatively, I'll
> treat you as soon as I get to Houston ...

You're on ... you know how to find us. And bring Marlow with you, the
boy needs some "scientifically" prepared food and beverage.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Larry Blanchard wrote:
> >> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:40:18 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:
> >>
> >>> Since when did the word theory become virtually a fact? Unless you
> >>> have a new defintion of terms, the word theory has never been
> >>> accpeted as any kind of a fact.
> >>
> >> Well ....
> >>
> >> the reference Swingman gave defines theory as:
> >>
> >> "A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a
> >> substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of
> >> observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation."
> >>
> >> I'd say that places it a lot closer to a fact than to an opinion or
> >> belief. Those are often not supported by much of anything :-).
> >
> > I'll certainly relinquish the use of the word "belief" (perhaps a poorly
> > chosen word earlier...), but even Swing's text above does not make a
> > theory virtually a fact - regardless of how close it may appear to be.
> >
> > --
> >
> > -Mike-
> > [email protected]
> >
> Mike,
> I agree with you that Swingman's text above does not make a theory virtually
> a fact. A theory is not virtually a fact, it is as Swingman stated.

It's close enough to "fact" to be used for engineering design,
interplanetary navigation, and other such purposes.

In science, the word "hypothesis" is used to describe what in ordinary
conversation is called "theory". And "theory" is used to described a
model that has passed every test anyone has been able to concieve for
it. Physics doesn't use "law" anymore, however it's been grandfathered
for things like Newtonian mechanics. And there is a different usage in
mathematics, where "theory" is an internally consistent system which may
or may not have anything at all to do with reality.

The trouble with climatology is that a lot of people are treating
climatological hypotheses like they are theory.

On 2/17/2012 1:08 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> writes:
>> On 2/16/2012 10:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, in my book, you can brainstorm an idea, formulate a(n)
>>>>> hypothesis, perform experiments trying to prove the hypothesis, and
>>>>> if supported formulate a theory. Then once totally vetted, tested,
>>>>> and pulled through the wringer, if nothing untowards appears, it
>>>>> becomes "law". Even then you need to be careful, as shown by the
>>>>> recent instance of (not so) random number generation in the RSA
>>>>> algorithm involved in money transactions via the internet.
>>
>>> To be more precise, the recent issue with RSA factoring related to
>>> weak PRNG implementations was primarily limited to embedded devices
>>> such as routers and gateways.
>>
>> See below:
>>
>>> None of the factorable (and they used
>>> a rather clever method using GCD to factor the keys) keys were associated
>>> with any major website, or with any key signed by a trusted certification
>>> authority (e.g. verisign et. al.). It seems the bulk of the bad keys were
>>> generated on embedded devices, when first powered on, when the PRNG hadn't
>>> had enough entropy to guarantee randomness.
>>
>> Been following this on ArsTechnica for awhile.
>>
>> And with regard to the above, some argue that this distribution of weak
>> keys is even of greater concern:
>>
>> <quote>
>> "Meanwhile, Hughes, one of the co-writers of the original paper, says he
>> remains convinced that the weak keys represent a threat to people using
>> webmail and e-commerce.
>>
>> "I hate to say it but this does have implications for web-based commerce
>> because people can mount man-in-the-middle attacks," he said. "People
>> know, for instance, there have been man-in-the-middle attacks mounted
>> against websites by foreign countries. Embedded systems matter to
>> e-commerce because they're the infrastructure that goes between you and
>> the site you're trying to go to."
>> </quote>
>>
>> While this could be a case of protecting/justifying your initial
>> assessment, the fact remains that, as you noted above, many of the weak
>> keys were indeed embedded in routing equipment.
>
> However, those keys were primarily SSH keys, not SSL keys, and were used
> to protect the administration interfaces on said routing equipment. Can't
> be used for a MIM attack at all, since it is completely orthogonal.

<snip of much informative stuff>

So Hughes is indeed all wet?

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Han wrote:
>
> Not that far-fetched. There is a theory (ahum) that says that if the
> Arctic gets too ice-free (which may happen with global warming,
> increases in ocean levels, and changes to ocean circulation, it (the
> Arctic Ocean) will evaporate so much that it will snow and asnow and
> snow and another ice-age will result. As I said, a theory ...

Your post shows a distinct misunderstanding of scientific terminology.

In science, the word "theory" is NOT speculation, guesswork, or probability.
A scientific theory is virtually a fact, as in "The Theory of Universal
Gravitation," or "The Theory of Electricity," or the "Theory of Conservation
of Energy."

After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without any
contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law", as in "The
Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side Down." In fact,
"Theory" and "Law" are often interchangable.

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Maybe you had that happen again but IIRC you had no such covers when we
> saw it happen at the end of the day.

Hey guys, it's Valentine's day, and I love you both <grin>!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> The _science_ is on _my_ side!

That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the question.
For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at least one who is
on the side of science.

But then, my son-in-law, the high school math teacher has a T-shirt that
says:
Sarcasm
Just another service we offer.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Swingman wrote:
>
>>
>> Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter"
>> (which were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by
>> woodworkers, woodworkers with science degrees, among other things,
>
> Agreed - except that my point was that among the most elite of the
> scientific minds within any discipline, there is disagreement. So -
> here's these greatest of minds, with the fullness of their educations,
> and they somehow do no agree on theories, and ideas. How then can a
> group of woodworkers that even with their professional background
> (which are generally not in that elite realm), expect to define
> "scientific" in any better way? When the best of the best use
> "scientific" processes to defend their positions, and find themselves
> in disagreement, how can this forum hope to achieve any better? And
> then someone comes up with the phrase that this is "scientific" - BS.
> On which side of the argument? Both sides use science to defend their
> position.
>
>> and contrary to your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case
>> stands for "science" <g>) are well understood and pretty universally
>> "accepted science" for the past few hundred years... at least, so
>> far.
>
> Science is by no means understood universally. If it were, there
> would not be contradictory theories within the real of scientific
> study. The scientific community is in no way in complete accord.
> Methinks we throw this word "scientific" around way too loosely. We
> tend to use it in attempt to defend our own position with no regard to
> how much discord there is within the true world of scientific
> discourse.
>
>>
>> Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze
>> your food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other
>> things.
>
> Well - we never disagreed on the value of science. I'm only
> challenging the use of the term "scientific" as thrown about here.
>
>>
>> I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ... :)
>
> Me too - but that was not my point.

I got a PhD in 1976 in biochemistry, from the University of Utrecht with
Professor Laurens L.M. van Deenen. You can google him, he's dead now.
That's by way of saying it wasn't from a matchbook cover diploma mill. I
have also been co-author of many good scientific articles, of which I am
proud. Look up M.J. Broekman in PubMed.

But you're right, there is a lot of disagreement about scientific
theories. That's a good thing. It means that people are disagreeing
about ways to explain observed facts (If they are indeed facts). The
only way to explain these things is to posit a theory to explain why it
happens so (e.g., the sky is blue, for instance, not such an easy thing
to explain). Then others may disagree and put forth their own theories.
And in my field of work, which involved lipids, aspirin, platelets and
other blood related things, there was plenty of disagreement and
sometimes the words used (even in public) were barely polite (sometimes
appropriately so!!). In the end, which sometimes comes after the
proponent of a theory had passed, the whole process was good, and flaws
in reasoning, or the excellence of the reasoning was born out by clever
experiments. And sometimes, a personal preference (or prejudice for a
certain theory) was proven to be wrong, or right.

The scientific process goes like this example: People observe that
cholesterol is bad (you may have heard about this in one form or
another). People deduce how the (human) body generates cholesterol.
Konrad Bloch was one of the main characters involved and his story is
interesting in itself. I've heard him speak, and I can attest that at
least in public he was a most gentle and eloquent person. Cholesterol
biosynthesis starts from acetate (the anion of acetic acid, a crucial
molecule in metabolism), and in just a few steps this is made into a 5-
carbon molecule that is central to the whole thing. The next step is
catalyzed by an enzyme called HMGCoA reductase, yielding mevalonic acid.
From there it is an ingenious multistep synthesis of 5-carbon building
blocks that makes finally lanosterol and cholesterol. Sooo, ingenious
people thought that perhaps excessive cholesterol could be prevented if
they were able to slow formation of that building block mevalonic acid.
And from that HYPOTHESIS they made the HMGCoA reductase inhibitors called
STATINS, including "lipitor" and its friends. And lo and behold, statins
were cholesterol-lowering and (most importantly) lowered risks of heart
disease. Theory proven? Maybe, maybe not completely, because in
<http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/cholesterol.html> you can see that
other things come from the intermediates in the long pathway. It turns
out that farnesyl- and geranyl-modified proteins are playing a role in
inflammation, and part of the effects of lipitor et al is now generally
considered due to that. So theories are important, and you can disagree
with the reasoning, but scientific discourse and experimentation will
show different degrees of "truth".

Peer review is in theory very good and if properly supervised and
honestly performed it should be the very best way to judge whether an
unpublished piece of work is worthy of publication in a highly regarded
journal. If I have written a publication, my peers who are experts inthe
same field should be the best jury to judge my work. However, since we
deal with humans, the editors of that highly regarded journal who assign
the job of review to a supposedly disinterested expert can make errors
and assign a nincompoop the job. And, of course, if I know that Dr.
Jones is after the same things I have just labored years to unravel, I
can ask the editor to NOT let Dr. Jones see my work, especially if I do
not totally trust him. And the reverse: Editors almost always also ask
to suggest expert reviewers, so I will more readily propose my friends
than my enemies to review my work! Lastly, I have heard horror stories
of investigators who were really good researchers (we thought) who made
their postdocs repeat experiments over and over until they got it
"right", i.e. give the answer the researcher wanted. I can give names
etc but I won't (guess why?). Therefore, the "facts" underlying the
theory and observation are sometimes not right. But mostly, the disgrace
that you risk in publishing falsehoods prevents them.

So yes, peer review has its problems, the most important one being that
it hardly pays to try to publish work that says that the publication by
so and so is wrong - negative data don't help a young investigator. Most
bad research gets flushed pretty fast, such as the work that proposed the
DNA could be based on arsenic rather than phosphorus or that
"identified" a virus as the cause of chronic fatigue syndrome. These may
be more examples of somewhat "sloppy" work, than outright fraud.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 2/14/2012 3:23 PM, Han wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter"
>>>> (which were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by
>>>> woodworkers, woodworkers with science degrees, among other things,
>>>
>>> Agreed - except that my point was that among the most elite of the
>>> scientific minds within any discipline, there is disagreement. So -
>>> here's these greatest of minds, with the fullness of their
>>> educations, and they somehow do no agree on theories, and ideas.
>>> How then can a group of woodworkers that even with their
>>> professional background (which are generally not in that elite
>>> realm), expect to define "scientific" in any better way? When the
>>> best of the best use "scientific" processes to defend their
>>> positions, and find themselves in disagreement, how can this forum
>>> hope to achieve any better? And then someone comes up with the
>>> phrase that this is "scientific" - BS. On which side of the
>>> argument? Both sides use science to defend their position.
>>>
>>>> and contrary to your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case
>>>> stands for "science"<g>) are well understood and pretty universally
>>>> "accepted science" for the past few hundred years... at least, so
>>>> far.
>>>
>>> Science is by no means understood universally. If it were, there
>>> would not be contradictory theories within the real of scientific
>>> study. The scientific community is in no way in complete accord.
>>> Methinks we throw this word "scientific" around way too loosely. We
>>> tend to use it in attempt to defend our own position with no regard
>>> to how much discord there is within the true world of scientific
>>> discourse.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze
>>>> your food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among
>>>> other things.
>>>
>>> Well - we never disagreed on the value of science. I'm only
>>> challenging the use of the term "scientific" as thrown about here.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ... :)
>>>
>>> Me too - but that was not my point.
>>
>> I got a PhD in 1976 in biochemistry, from the University of Utrecht
>> with Professor Laurens L.M. van Deenen. You can google him, he's
>> dead now. That's by way of saying it wasn't from a matchbook cover
>> diploma mill. I have also been co-author of many good scientific
>> articles, of which I am proud. Look up M.J. Broekman in PubMed.
>
> So with all that knowledge, please explain what happened in Swingman's
> garage that afternoon. ;~)

I thought about that a LONGGG time. And this is my hypothesis: It had
been a hot, Houston and sweaty type of day. You had the doors open and
the front came through. It got cold(er) and you, Leon, closed the doors,
but both you and Karl were so sweaty that you instantly caused the
ambient (absolute) humidity to increase beyond the dewpoint at the
"iron" as you called it. Of course the effects of beverages consumed is
unknown to me ...

<grin>.

As soon as you both get to Fair Lawn, I'll treat you to a few in the
Dutch House <http://www.dutchhousetavern.com/>. Alternatively, I'll
treat you as soon as I get to Houston ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 2/14/2012 12:17 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 2/14/2012 11:44 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Han wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
>>>> question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
>>>> least one who is on the side of science.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what does
>>> it mean
>>> to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase
>>> comes from
>>> people who are not really all that scientific in their approach, but
>>> rather
>>> like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With all
>>> of the
>>> dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole
>>> concept of
>>> peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific"
>>> has any real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific
>>> community world wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so
>>> how can a woodworkers newsgroup even pretend to use the word
>>> "scientific" in regards to any discussion in this forum? To take a
>>> phrase from m II - Bullshit.
>>
>> Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter"
>> (which were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by
>> woodworkers, woodworkers with science degrees, among other things,
>> and contrary to your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case
>> stands for "science" <g>) are well understood and pretty universally
>> "accepted science" for the past few hundred years... at least, so
>> far.
>>
>> Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze
>> your food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other
>> things.
>>
>> I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ... :)
>>
>
>
> That't it! Thai's what caused the cold front to cause condensation on
> the tools! GLOBAL WARMING!
>
> My nephew's wife swears that Globel Warming is causing global cooling.
> Yup that right you heard that for the first time right here. LOL
>
<snip>

Not that far-fetched. There is a theory (ahum) that says that if the
Arctic gets too ice-free (which may happen with global warming, increases
in ocean levels, and changes to ocean circulation, it (the Arctic Ocean)
will evaporate so much that it will snow and asnow and snow and another
ice-age will result. As I said, a theory ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 2/14/2012 3:45 PM, Han wrote:
>
>> I thought about that a LONGGG time. And this is my hypothesis: It
>> had been a hot, Houston and sweaty type of day. You had the doors
>> open and the front came through. It got cold(er) and you, Leon,
>> closed the doors, but both you and Karl were so sweaty that you
>> instantly caused the ambient (absolute) humidity to increase beyond
>> the dewpoint at the "iron" as you called it. Of course the effects
>> of beverages consumed is unknown to me ...
>
> Except of course, it was morning and a warm foggy front, after a cold
> night. LOL
>
>> As soon as you both get to Fair Lawn, I'll treat you to a few in the
>> Dutch House<http://www.dutchhousetavern.com/>. Alternatively, I'll
>> treat you as soon as I get to Houston ...
>
> You're on ... you know how to find us. And bring Marlow with you, the
> boy needs some "scientifically" prepared food and beverage.

My "as soon as I get to Houston" is unlikely to be soon ... Marlow is on
his own, I don't really know him, ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I like to put it this way, you have summer then winter then summer then
> winter and again and again and again. You could say that summer causes
> winter and winter causes summer.

You could say that, but one thing following another isn't proof of
causality. Just like in my long cholesterol story the lowering of
cholesterol doesn't mean you'd also cause sterility or too low a level of
sex hormones

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Swingman wrote:
>
>> ~ First:
>>
>> That is neither the term "scientific" to which you specifically took
>> exception, nor an attempt at a definition thereof. See yours above
>> with regard to challenging the specific word, to the point of putting
>> it in quotes.
>
> Nah - I didn't really take exception with it, and I sure don't try to
> define it. The word scientific and science are synonymous enough to
> me that I didn't really see any difference. Though - I can see where
> another might see a difference.
>
> FWIW - I was responding to Han, so I was not calling out your
> statements.

I believe I have responded to that, maybe excessively so.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:90edf$4f3b34a7
[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> I believe I have responded to that, maybe excessively so.
>
> Yup - and I read it... all of it!

THANKS!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[email protected] wrote in news:6hdmj7tlue0jatr1drt3jgvbl9g7mgs5kk@
4ax.com:

> The "correct" term is "climate change"
> Her in Ontario we've had a pretty "warm" winter, while eastern Europe
> is MUCH colder than normal.
> "Climate Change" appears to be causing extremes much more noticeable
> than the reported 2? degree average world temperature increase over
> how many years?.

I don't care about "correct" terms. Indeed globally averaged, temps are
apparently slowly increasing. IMNSHO, that is likely to be partly caused
by increases in CO2 (and probably CH4 from erupting cattle as well).
Another factor may well be the increasing urbanization and paving with
blacktop ("city island effect"). Everywhere incidental temp fluctuations
from year to year get attention much more. There was great excitement in
Holland during the recent cold spell about the possibility of an
Elfstedentocht (11 cities race and tour on natural ice of some 200 km/120
miles), but the ice was by far not thick enough over great stretches of
the route <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elfstedentocht>. The last race
was in 1997. I remember listening to the radio reports of the progress
of some of these races, before TV ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 2/14/2012 10:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:32:38 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/14/2012 12:17 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 2/14/2012 11:44 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
>>>>>> question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is
>>>>>> at least one who is on the side of science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what
>>>>> does it mean
>>>>> to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase
>>>>> comes from
>>>>> people who are not really all that scientific in their approach,
>>>>> but rather
>>>>> like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With
>>>>> all of the
>>>>> dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole
>>>>> concept of
>>>>> peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific"
>>>>> has any real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific
>>>>> community world wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so
>>>>> how can a woodworkers newsgroup even pretend to use the word
>>>>> "scientific" in regards to any discussion in this forum? To take a
>>>>> phrase from m II - Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter"
>>>> (which were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by
>>>> woodworkers, woodworkers with science degrees, among other things,
>>>> and contrary to your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case
>>>> stands for "science" <g>) are well understood and pretty
>>>> universally "accepted science" for the past few hundred years... at
>>>> least, so far.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze
>>>> your food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among
>>>> other things.
>>>>
>>>> I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ... :)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That't it! Thai's what caused the cold front to cause condensation
>>> on the tools! GLOBAL WARMING!
>>>
>>> My nephew's wife swears that Globel Warming is causing global
>>> cooling. Yup that right you heard that for the first time right
>>> here. LOL
>>>
>>> It's Butches fault.
>> The "correct" term is "climate change"
>> Her in Ontario we've had a pretty "warm" winter, while eastern
>> Europe
>> is MUCH colder than normal.
>> "Climate Change" appears to be causing extremes much more noticeable
>> than the reported 2? degree average world temperature increase over
>> how many years?.
>>
>
>
> I believe that if we had data available to us 150 years ago like we do
> today and if we lived to be 200 years old and could remember back to
> our child hood this "climate change" would be a normal cycle.
>
> Even with crude records and data we have always witnessed summers that
> were hotter and cooler than normal for several years in a row and we
> have witnessed winters that are colder and warmer than for several
> years in a row.
>
> AND because every thing that we are doing to put an end to this
> "ending of the world as we know it" is not helping one iota, read that
> as things are observed as getting worse faster, we have no clue what
> causes extended temperature changes, up or down. Weather extremes?
> You can fond worse weather extremes in the past using Google.
>
> I assure you if government was not involved or if there was no money
> to be made off of this latest world problem there would not be another
> word said about it.

The only thing about global warming (on a global scale and averaged over
the globe) is whether human generated gases (such as CO2 and CH4)
contribute more or less. Many people forget the globally averaged thing.
The theories have long predicted also an increase in more local outliers
and increasingly severe weather, again on a global averaged scale.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>>
>> Not that far-fetched. There is a theory (ahum) that says that if the
>> Arctic gets too ice-free (which may happen with global warming,
>> increases in ocean levels, and changes to ocean circulation, it (the
>> Arctic Ocean) will evaporate so much that it will snow and asnow and
>> snow and another ice-age will result. As I said, a theory ...
>
> Your post shows a distinct misunderstanding of scientific terminology.
>
> In science, the word "theory" is NOT speculation, guesswork, or
> probability. A scientific theory is virtually a fact, as in "The
> Theory of Universal Gravitation," or "The Theory of Electricity," or
> the "Theory of Conservation of Energy."
>
> After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without
> any contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law",
> as in "The Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side
> Down." In fact, "Theory" and "Law" are often interchangable.

OK, ok, I used theory where I should have used hypothesis.
I apologize.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> HeyBub wrote:
>
>>
>> Your post shows a distinct misunderstanding of scientific
>> terminology.
>>
>> In science, the word "theory" is NOT speculation, guesswork, or
>> probability. A scientific theory is virtually a fact, as in "The
>> Theory of Universal Gravitation," or "The Theory of Electricity," or
>> the "Theory of Conservation of Energy."
>>
>
> I do not work in the field of science but as I understand things, your
> statement above is pure bullshit. A theory is an unproven idea in the
> world of science. I even googled it, so I know it's right, because
> it's on the internet!
>
> Since when did the word theory become virtually a fact? Unless you
> have a new defintion of terms, the word theory has never been accpeted
> as any kind of a fact.
>
>
>> After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without
>> any contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law",
>
> Only if you want to assume things without the underlying understanding
> of whether that assumption is correct, or if it can be affected by
> other factors not yet considered.
>
>
>> as in "The Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side
>> Down." In fact, "Theory" and "Law" are often interchangable.
>
> Oh please... are you really a scientist?

Well, in my book, you can brainstorm an idea, formulate a(n) hypothesis,
perform experiments trying to prove the hypothesis, and if supported
formulate a theory. Then once totally vetted, tested, and pulled through
the wringer, if nothing untowards appears, it becomes "law". Even then
you need to be careful, as shown by the recent instance of (not so)
random number generation in the RSA algorithm involved in money
transactions via the internet.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Another word that causes confusion is "prophet." To a Jew and a
> Christian, the word has two completely different definitions. Members
> of the two faiths, unless they understand the differing meanings, can
> argue past each other all day long.

Not sure whether this is completely apropos, but here goes.

Eisenhower and his staff and Montgomery and his staff were having a
highfaluting meeting prior to D-Day. (Oh well, I thought up the names,
but it was a US-UK meeting in 1944. I know, because I was born later
<grin>.

Well the Brits wanted to table a battle plan, but ran into stiff
opposition by the Americans, who absolutely did NOT want to table the
proposal. After some back and forth, someone made the smoke clear, and
asked let's talk about this battle plan, shall we? And all agreed
because "to table" a proposal haad over the years acquired opposite
meanings on different sides of the Atlantic.

So, gentlemen and others, context is what you should look at it absolute
meaning confuses.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote:

>
> Um, someone tell Mike about the No Child Left Behind laws.

Show me the No Child Left Behind Law that specifies that all students will
be taught to the lowest common denominator. What are the penalties for
violating this law?

> They're
> what predicated the change to LCD teaching.

Go back and read what I wrote again. I stated that this whole LCD thing
does not exist in my area, as it is thrown about in forums like this.
Perhaps things are different where you live - I never spoke to anything but
the area where I live.

> And someone find the
> persons responsible for putting more money into the architecture of
> school buildings, the sports programs, and the administrator salaries
> than that of the teachers. And make them pay for their crimes against
> humanity.

We would not disagree too much on that point, but that's pretty much the way
it's always been. Teachers who have been at it for a while though, do make
very good money around here. My daughter-in-laws parents were both teachers
and both retired at over $100K. They weren't hurting for compensation. My
DIL started right off at $45K - not a bad starting pay for 9 months worth of
work.

>
> My neighbor's son was a high school Principal and tried to save
> teachers after funding cuts by removing the funding for the athletics
> department. The -state- jumped in and said he _must_ fund the dept.
> This was not the PE classes, but the -volunteer- sports programs. He
> thought that if enough parents wanted the sports, they could fund 'em
> themselves. The state told him differently. <thud>
>

That is what's criminal.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Scott Lurndal wrote:

>
> To be more precise,

Precise? That is a swear word to "big picture" people...

> the recent issue with RSA factoring related to
> weak PRNG implementations was primarily limited to embedded devices
> such as routers and gateways. None of the factorable (and they used
> a rather clever method using GCD to factor the keys) keys were
> associated with any major website, or with any key signed by a
> trusted certification authority (e.g. verisign et. al.). It seems
> the bulk of the bad keys were generated on embedded devices, when
> first powered on, when the PRNG hadn't had enough entropy to
> guarantee randomness.

Yeah - what he said... I think...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Swingman wrote:
> On 2/14/2012 12:48 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> Well - we never disagreed on the value of science. I'm only
>> challenging the use of the term "scientific" as thrown about here.
>
> I can only speak to the extent of my participation in this thread, but
> I'll certainly try to see your point ...
>
> But first point me to where the term "scientific", and/or an attempt
> at a definition, was "thrown about" in this thread before you brought
> the term up?
>

I would have to look back through the thread, but i responded to a very
specific use of that term by another poster. I'll try to find my initial
response and re-post the previous poster that brought about my reply.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:57:47 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2/14/2012 7:34 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 2/14/2012 7:28 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you remember the day you and I were working in your garage and a cold
>>>> front blew in at the end of the day. You Iron had condensation all over
>>>> it before we quit. We had to dry it off and you ended having lite rust.
>>>
>>> Yep, I remember the incident, well. LOL. It was at Ruskin, and I remember
>>> the cause was opening the shop door, when it had been cooler the day
>>> before, onto a foggy, relatively warmer morning. I also remember being
>>> pissed because I had not covered the tools the night before with those
>>> special covers that I have for that exact situation, a weather report
>>> that
>>> calls for much warmer, foggy conditions the next morning. :)
>>>
>>
>> That all happened at the end of the day, you and I had been working
>> together. You stayed late to finish drying and protecting the surfaces.
>> And IIRC you bought the covers after that when I pointed to the HTC
>> clearance sale.
>
>OK ... you certainly got me scratching my head.
>
>I distinctly remember having two, weather related, shop rust incidents
>of that nature, one indeed at the Ruskin location... both, in my memory,
>being _immediately upon_ "opening the overhead door".
>
>You sure it was Ruskin ... we moved the equipment there in late Oct/2008?
>
>AAMOF, that combination, to this day, always making me reluctant to open
>the overhead door without checking/being aware of a temperature
>differential, especially after the first time it happened after my 24/7
>wall mounted fan went out at Oberlin, which moved enough air for it to
>not normally be an issue.
>
>I simply do not recall a "cold front" ever being the cause, but hey, it
>wouldn't be the first time I wore shorts and t-shirt in 30 degree
>weather without noticing the cold.
>
> ... but that STILL doesn't explain why, <drumroll>:
>
>The _science_ is on _my_ side!
>
><g,d &r>
You guys down there in (central?) Florida have a lot of high humidity
-We get it up here in Central Ontario for a couple of weeks a year -
and I experienced it a LOT when I was in Zambia. Didn't know you COULD
have RH over 100% - but under certain conditions it happens - it's not
raining, or even really "misty" but swing anything through the air at
any speed and it gets wet (instead of drying off).
A drop in temperature and everything in the shop got wet -
particularly if a slight breeze and the shade of the roof kept the
inside shop temp just below the outside air temperature (Thermal mass
of concrete shop cooled off over-night and sun on the ground in the
yard heated the air above - nothing to have air temp out in the yard
46C, (115F) and the shop a relatively comfortable 35C (95F) or even
cooler, then have the clouds and breeze move in and the outside
temperture drop a few degrees.

With Victoria Falls, the worlds largest humidifier 10 Km down the
road, October was HELL. The humidity was aproaching 100%, and you
KNEW it wasn't going to rain for another 6 weeks!!!

Han wrote:

>
> Well, in my book, you can brainstorm an idea, formulate a(n)
> hypothesis, perform experiments trying to prove the hypothesis, and
> if supported formulate a theory. Then once totally vetted, tested,
> and pulled through the wringer, if nothing untowards appears, it
> becomes "law". Even then you need to be careful, as shown by the
> recent instance of (not so) random number generation in the RSA
> algorithm involved in money transactions via the internet.

I agree.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Swingman wrote:

> ~ First:
>
> That is neither the term "scientific" to which you specifically took
> exception, nor an attempt at a definition thereof. See yours above
> with regard to challenging the specific word, to the point of putting
> it in quotes.

Nah - I didn't really take exception with it, and I sure don't try to define
it. The word scientific and science are synonymous enough to me that I
didn't really see any difference. Though - I can see where another might
see a difference.

FWIW - I was responding to Han, so I was not calling out your statements.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:09:56 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:14:02 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> Yes - they do work harder on
>> the slower kids, but there is no legislation, nor are there any school
>> policies that require to teach to the lowest common denominator. None.
>
>What are the percentages of students failing and having to repeat a
>grade? That'll tell you more than your personal experiences will.

Um, someone tell Mike about the No Child Left Behind laws. They're
what predicated the change to LCD teaching. And someone find the
persons responsible for putting more money into the architecture of
school buildings, the sports programs, and the administrator salaries
than that of the teachers. And make them pay for their crimes against
humanity.

My neighbor's son was a high school Principal and tried to save
teachers after funding cuts by removing the funding for the athletics
department. The -state- jumped in and said he _must_ fund the dept.
This was not the PE classes, but the -volunteer- sports programs. He
thought that if enough parents wanted the sports, they could fund 'em
themselves. The state told him differently. <thud>

Sports are more important to some people than their child's education.
Go figure.

--
Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Han wrote:
>>
>> Your post shows a distinct misunderstanding of scientific
>> terminology.
>>
>> In science, the word "theory" is NOT speculation, guesswork, or
>> probability. A scientific theory is virtually a fact, as in "The
>> Theory of Universal Gravitation," or "The Theory of Electricity," or
>> the "Theory of Conservation of Energy."
>>
>> After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without
>> any contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law",
>> as in "The Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side
>> Down." In fact, "Theory" and "Law" are often interchangable.
>
> OK, ok, I used theory where I should have used hypothesis.
> I apologize.

No apology necessary. It's just that a word can have different meanings
depending on the venue.

Another word that causes confusion is "prophet." To a Jew and a Christian,
the word has two completely different definitions. Members of the two
faiths, unless they understand the differing meanings, can argue past each
other all day long.