|
information suppression by universities
"John Smith" wrote in message ... JB wrote: ... The Forrestal disaster was attributed to druggies. The enemy was no doubt there on board. Many people have yet to figure out about the mechanics of such disasters. I submit that there will be 2 sides to every story to come out of the Vietnam war, and that sufficient truth is often left out to allow that. I wrecked a few cars before I learned how to drive. Have you ever been tortured for information? or just for the hell of it? People who sit around and talk about it over tea aren't fit to judge who a hero is but they are often left to talk about it. Let's just call him "experienced". I really don't consider Obama to be the "Black Messiah" either. I feel that both candidates were potential disasters, showing the idiots had prevailed before the election. The vote only served as an international "poll" on how best to proceed to our doom. It seems the election has tried to set the clock back to what it was before 9/11. Let's see what develops this time around. Along the way, though college, it is pointed out to you that any great story (or, at least a believable one) has a protagonist and an antagonist (sometimes more of them, sometimes less of them); i.e. a "good guy" and a "bad guy." It is based on a storyline where great adversity is found, great sacrifice and energy extended and exerted, and finally the defeat of the enemy is had ... funny, but we will fall for this same line though uncounted books by uncounted authors. Read any great Greek tragedies/novels/plays, Shakespeare knew this and you find it in his offerings. (Or, turn on Rush, "... bad democrats, good republicans ...", this is simply recited over-and-over again to keep idiots in line and massage the weak minds into the hypnotic/religious lies which got us here ... some still have futures which hinge on keeping the insanity alive. Indeed, real change will bring collapse ...) Such is also how our political system is arranged, good guy vs. bad guy (and, you just pick who is good and who is bad, or toss a coin. Or have you allegiances bought and paid for ...) And, so is our foreign policy applied, we are the good guy, they are the bad guy and these are our friends who help us in our great adventure ... fear gets the whole ball rolling, even unjustified fear(s) will work ... Someday, all will see the truth, become ashamed of living such a shallow "truth(s)", and be shamed into higher standards and goals ... until that time, a few can control the minds of many ... and ultimately the world. Regards, JS I had considered the "good cop", "bad cop" routine, but I really think it goes back to the "demoralization" and "destabilization" process that you yourself (and myself) admit to in lost faith, but healthy distrust along with a sense of reality is vital, but not to the point of being crippled. Rush noticed that what's "good" for the Country is "bad" for the democrats and what's "bad" for the Country is "good" for the democrats. It isn't lost on me that "when it bleeds it leads". Who for example is responsible for those who apply psychological pressure to "known" gun owners to induce them to random mass murder? Who would that benefit? There are many cynical people out there with a sick sense of humor. Your assertion that real change would bring collapse is too cynical and I wouldn't set myself up to be wrong unless there is a complete failure. That just gives us the wrong goal. Seek God. I know you hate "religion" but rather than seeking as a blind follower, seek as a researcher. Set those things aside that you don't immediately understand but don't entirely dismiss them. That is simply arrogance. The intellectual is a fathead who completely dismisses that which he doesn't understand or what is related to him by the unschooled. Those who do that operate contrary to the scientific method. Even a failed experiment shouldn't be thrown out, but learned from. Or saved until the failure is understood. In light of that, "The Interview" link I posted earlier, the true threat is the cynicism that developed that whole school of thought. It is a process of destruction. Not only that, but of unchecked destruction. |
information suppression by universities
JB wrote:
... I had considered the "good cop", "bad cop" routine, but I really think it goes back to the "demoralization" and "destabilization" process that you yourself (and myself) admit to in lost faith, but healthy distrust along with a sense of reality is vital, but not to the point of being crippled. Rush noticed that what's "good" for the Country is "bad" for the democrats and what's "bad" for the Country is "good" for the democrats. It isn't lost on me that "when it bleeds it leads". Who for example is responsible for those who apply psychological pressure to "known" gun owners to induce them to random mass murder? Who would that benefit? There are many cynical people out there with a sick sense of humor. Your assertion that real change would bring collapse is too cynical and I wouldn't set myself up to be wrong unless there is a complete failure. That just gives us the wrong goal. Seek God. I know you hate "religion" but rather than seeking as a blind follower, seek as a researcher. Set those things aside that you don't immediately understand but don't entirely dismiss them. That is simply arrogance. The intellectual is a fathead who completely dismisses that which he doesn't understand or what is related to him by the unschooled. Those who do that operate contrary to the scientific method. Even a failed experiment shouldn't be thrown out, but learned from. Or saved until the failure is understood. In light of that, "The Interview" link I posted earlier, the true threat is the cynicism that developed that whole school of thought. It is a process of destruction. Not only that, but of unchecked destruction. "What is good for the country" is a religious term, the way it is being used lacks any real meaning ... "The country" is its' citizens. It is not the buildings, it is not the wealth, it is not plots of dirt ... when our public servants carry out the majority of the people wills, while preventing great harm to minorities, it is doing its' job. Government was created to serve the people. It was never created to be an institution of "leaders" who set policy, define monetary systems, influence the people, etc. It was created to provide what the people requested, it is ONLY a tool which is only valid when it is suffer-able to the people. Government does a good job when it provides public transportation systems, public roads, public sewer system, public water supplies, public electric/gas/heating/etc. Public schools with high standards, and those standards controlled by the people, is a good thing. Public health is another good example, it protects us from ill individuals who are threats to innocents lives. You get the point--only involved in things which provide equal services/protections to EACH-AND-EVERY-SINGLE citizen. Government does NOT do its' job when it takes religions marriage and redefines it for a minority which break the very meaning of the word (indeed, it breaks the separation of church and states powers from the get-go ...) What is "good for the country" is good for ALL peoples (poor, rich, educated, uneducated, white, black, young, old, etc.), what is good for a minority is NOT good for the country. Government should be like toilet paper, it is appreciated by all and servers all equally well ... grin Regards, JS |
information suppression by universities
On Nov 27, 12:58 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 25, 11:26 am, Jim Lux wrote: Jim IEEE state that if papers were open source it would threaten the presence of the IEEE? No.. it's that a significant part of IEEE's budget derives from publishing copyrighted standards and journals. One argument for the copyrighting of standards is that it provides a legal club to go after someone publishing an adulterated version. I'm not sure that really holds water, but there it is. The cost of actually printing the journals is significant, and has to come from somewhere. They're not exactly huge circulation, and mostly have no advertising, but are printed on high quality stock with good quality typesetting. This statement was in regard to the high costs of obtaining copies from the IEEE without having to pay the high costs of belonging . The cost to get a single copy is quite high compared to the cost to get access to thousands by being a member (check out those CCC prices at the bottom of the first page.. they're fairly pricey.. a dozen papers a year and you've just paid for your membership and access to Xplore) I understand the need for peer review by academics but not necessarily a private entity and the IEEE rights to publish such so, are the IEEE demanding SOLE ownership of presented papers? IEEE performs a useful function by organizing all those peer reviewers (finding them, getting the papers to them, haranguing them for their reviews, etc.).. Being an editor is a lot of work, and is often done as a labor of love by the editor (or, as "part of your job" in academe), as is being a decent reviewer. IEEE requests copyright transfer to them for papers published in their journals for a variety of reasons, and with a variety of exceptions. 1) Makes sure that you're not publishing the same thing in multiple places at the same time.. 2) If your work was done, e.g., on gov't contract, often, the contract requires that the paper be public domain, and the IEEE is cool with that. 3) The author can publish the paper on their own website with an appropriate disclaimer. I am assuming that all papers presented by the Universities as well as thesis papers belong to the parent university based on a recent antenna patent awarded to a University derived from a student dissertation. Not necessarily ("all" is pretty all-encompassing).. A lot depends on the funding source for the work. This leaves an outstanding question !. If the university a public entity, reserves the rights of all papers arrived at the university then what rights do they hold that allows transference from the public domain of those rights to a private institution to the detriment of the public that finance them? Those rights were never in the public domain to begin with. One might argue that the underlying idea is in the public domain, but the written description of has a copyright that belongs to the author (except for a "work for hire") and the author gets to decide what they do with it. And, I would argue that arranging for the publication of the work in a "learned journal" is a pretty effective way of disseminating the work to the general public. The fact that IEEE (or Inst of Physics or AAAS, etc.) get an assignment of copyright as part of the process is part of the cost of doing that publication. And it's a fact that as online publication becomes easier, work IS being disseminated by these means. However, one should not disregard the significant value brought to the process by the formalized peer review system. Yes, it has flaws and can be (and has been) subverted, but it works moderately well. Compare to the situation a hundred or two hundred years ago. I don't complain that "the system" isn't moving as rapidly as technology might allow, because the system has a fairly long time constant, which is actually a good thing, since it prevents rapid whipsawing to follow fashion. A printed journal will still be readable 100 or 200 years from now. The same cannot necessarily be said of djvu or pdf or tiff or other elecronic forms. One should also not complain too loudly about the lack of heritage journals on line for free. It costs a LOT to scan thing and put them online, particularly if they're searchable. If you could convince Congress to do it as a service to mankind, that would be a worthy goal, but for now, someone's got to pay for it. Regards Art Unwin |
information suppression by universities
On Nov 29, 6:46*pm, wrote:
On Nov 27, 12:58 pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Nov 25, 11:26 am, Jim Lux wrote: Jim IEEE state that if papers were open source it would threaten the presence of the IEEE? No.. it's that a significant part of IEEE's budget derives from publishing copyrighted standards and journals. One argument for the copyrighting of standards is that it provides a legal club to go after someone publishing an adulterated version. I'm not sure that really holds water, but there it is. The cost of actually printing the journals is significant, and has to come from somewhere. *They're not exactly huge circulation, and mostly have no advertising, but are printed on high quality stock with good quality typesetting. This statement was in regard to the high costs of obtaining copies from the IEEE without having to pay the high costs of belonging . The cost to get a single copy is quite high compared to the cost to get access to thousands by being a member (check out those CCC prices at the bottom of the first page.. they're fairly pricey.. a dozen papers a year and you've just paid for your membership and access to Xplore) *I understand the need for peer review by academics but not necessarily a private entity and the IEEE rights to publish such so, are the IEEE demanding SOLE ownership of presented papers? IEEE performs a useful function by organizing all those peer reviewers (finding them, getting the papers to them, haranguing them for their reviews, etc.).. Being an editor is a lot of work, and is often done as a labor of love by the editor (or, as "part of your job" in academe), as is being a decent reviewer. IEEE requests copyright transfer to them for papers published in their journals for a variety of reasons, and with a variety of exceptions. 1) Makes sure that you're not publishing the same thing in multiple places at the same time.. 2) If your work was done, e.g., on gov't contract, often, the contract requires that the paper be public domain, and the IEEE is cool with that. 3) The author can publish the paper on their own website with an appropriate disclaimer. I am assuming that all papers presented by the Universities as well as thesis papers belong to the parent university based on a recent antenna patent awarded to a University derived from a student dissertation. Not necessarily ("all" is pretty all-encompassing).. A lot depends on the funding source for the work. This leaves *an outstanding question !. If the university a public entity, reserves the rights of all papers arrived at the university then what rights do they hold that allows transference from the public domain of those rights to a private institution to the detriment of the public that finance them? Those rights were never in the public domain to begin with. One might argue that the underlying idea is in the public domain, but the written description of has a copyright that belongs to the author (except for a "work for hire") and the author gets to decide what they do with it. *And, I would argue that arranging for the publication of the work in a "learned journal" is a pretty effective way of disseminating the work to the general public. The fact that IEEE (or Inst of Physics or AAAS, etc.) get an assignment of copyright as part of the process is part of the cost of doing that publication. *And it's a fact that as online publication becomes easier, work IS being disseminated by these means. However, one should not disregard the significant value brought to the process by the formalized peer review system. Yes, it has flaws and can be (and has been) subverted, but it works moderately well. Compare to the situation a hundred or two hundred years ago. *I don't complain that "the system" isn't moving as rapidly as technology might allow, because the system has a fairly long time constant, which is actually a good thing, since it prevents rapid whipsawing to follow fashion. * A printed journal will still be readable 100 or 200 years from now. *The same cannot necessarily be said of djvu or pdf or tiff or other elecronic forms. One should also not complain too loudly about the lack of heritage journals on line for free. *It costs a LOT to scan thing and put them online, particularly if they're searchable. *If you could convince Congress to do it as a service to mankind, that would be a worthy goal, but for now, someone's got to pay for it. Regards Art Unwin If the paper is under the auspices of the University it belongs to the University.Period Same goes for doctorate dissertations plus patent rights if applicable to disertations. Since it is a public University I question their rights to with hold information from the public at large. This is a great inconvenience to those laid off, unemployed that wish to stay up to date while searching for employment. To with hold information from the general public can be seen as a crime against the Country and there are other ways of obtaining reviews without non revealment to the public. Universities already prevent online useage of their technical libraries but there is not one good reason why studies paid for by the public taxes should not be placed on the INTERNET. To deprive the unemployed, retired, teachers and those under license by federal authorities in pursuit of science advancement is a crime against the Country by denying it a path to a better society. If there is a need for overview by one's peers then Universities and education bodies should be able to handle things for themselves instead providing papers to a private institution for personal benefits. It is time for CHANGE in the US where the ability for its people to access any means that is to the countries benefit as well as it constituents.If a patent holder or applicant has no rights with regard to dissemination of his studies then there is no real need for concealment by public entities When public papers are handled by those elected by the people the present professional bodies will have to allow the market to decide whether there is a place for them I suppose eventually there will be a request in federal court that such information must be released for the press or the publiwhich can be hastened by informing your Congressman or Senator of the THEFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS BY PRIVATE ENTITIES Art |
information suppression by universities
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... THEFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS BY PRIVATE ENTITIES so go file a criminal complaint... even at 'public' universities not all research work is paid for by the public. many projects are funded by private companies and other entities who retain the right to such work and any patents that may result. now of course most patents are publicly available, but not all of them... go figure that one out. of course how much more are you willing to be taxed to support electronic publishing of everything written at a public university? that service doesn't come for free, and the sheer volume of that stuff would make it downright expensive. |
information suppression by universities
On Nov 30, 4:47*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... THEFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS BY PRIVATE ENTITIES so go file a criminal complaint... *even at 'public' universities not all research work is paid for by the public. *many projects are funded by private companies and other entities who retain the right to such work and any patents that may result. *now of course most patents are publicly available, but not all of them... go figure that one out. *of course how much more are you willing to be taxed to support electronic publishing of everything written at a public university? *that service doesn't come for free, and the sheer volume of that stuff would make it downright expensive. I have asked the trusties what the policy is regarding this before I proceed. I am in the rujst belt and there are many engineers that have and are going to be laid off. They will not be able to afford to stay abreast of things and thus will be hurtin the coming depression. Not good for the Countries future I would say Art |
information suppression by universities
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 02:51:59 GMT, "JB" wrote:
... my blind belief that men in power would honor their duties and responsibilities to the American people has been destroyed. The time when our nation stood on infallible principals, morals, ethics, honors and commitments has slowly disappeared until such territories are loath to intellectuals--other than to demand a return to sanity, truth in government and the publics right to know, and a fair and just system. This is actually where I have stood since the first grade. Except that the public seems to have abdicated it's right to know by entrusting that to advertisers and spokesman. 1. Vote no when there is too much verbiage in legislation 2. Vote such that politicians will tend wear themselves out (on each other) before doing harm which often results from an unchallenged decision. This also gives the public more of a swing vote in their decisions. The only infallible is God. Our country takes a tumble every time we lose our moral compass. Aside from that, NO country or system has ever been infallible. We could be disappointed under any system that we entrust all power to men (or women). Be very afraid when they are all in complete agreement, because they won't need us for anything anymore. Defecation on your non-existent deity. |
information suppression by universities
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 03:47:46 GMT, "JB" wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message ... JB wrote: ... The Forrestal disaster was attributed to druggies. The enemy was no doubt there on board. Many people have yet to figure out about the mechanics of such disasters. I submit that there will be 2 sides to every story to come out of the Vietnam war, and that sufficient truth is often left out to allow that. I wrecked a few cars before I learned how to drive. Have you ever been tortured for information? or just for the hell of it? People who sit around and talk about it over tea aren't fit to judge who a hero is but they are often left to talk about it. Let's just call him "experienced". I really don't consider Obama to be the "Black Messiah" either. I feel that both candidates were potential disasters, showing the idiots had prevailed before the election. The vote only served as an international "poll" on how best to proceed to our doom. It seems the election has tried to set the clock back to what it was before 9/11. Let's see what develops this time around. Along the way, though college, it is pointed out to you that any great story (or, at least a believable one) has a protagonist and an antagonist (sometimes more of them, sometimes less of them); i.e. a "good guy" and a "bad guy." It is based on a storyline where great adversity is found, great sacrifice and energy extended and exerted, and finally the defeat of the enemy is had ... funny, but we will fall for this same line though uncounted books by uncounted authors. Read any great Greek tragedies/novels/plays, Shakespeare knew this and you find it in his offerings. (Or, turn on Rush, "... bad democrats, good republicans ...", this is simply recited over-and-over again to keep idiots in line and massage the weak minds into the hypnotic/religious lies which got us here ... some still have futures which hinge on keeping the insanity alive. Indeed, real change will bring collapse ...) Such is also how our political system is arranged, good guy vs. bad guy (and, you just pick who is good and who is bad, or toss a coin. Or have you allegiances bought and paid for ...) And, so is our foreign policy applied, we are the good guy, they are the bad guy and these are our friends who help us in our great adventure ... fear gets the whole ball rolling, even unjustified fear(s) will work ... Someday, all will see the truth, become ashamed of living such a shallow "truth(s)", and be shamed into higher standards and goals ... until that time, a few can control the minds of many ... and ultimately the world. Regards, JS I had considered the "good cop", "bad cop" routine, but I really think it goes back to the "demoralization" and "destabilization" process that you yourself (and myself) admit to in lost faith, but healthy distrust along with a sense of reality is vital, but not to the point of being crippled. Rush noticed that what's "good" for the Country is "bad" for the democrats and what's "bad" for the Country is "good" for the democrats. It isn't lost on me that "when it bleeds it leads". Who for example is responsible for those who apply psychological pressure to "known" gun owners to induce them to random mass murder? Who would that benefit? There are many cynical people out there with a sick sense of humor. Your assertion that real change would bring collapse is too cynical and I wouldn't set myself up to be wrong unless there is a complete failure. That just gives us the wrong goal. Seek God. I know you hate "religion" but rather than seeking as a blind follower, seek as a researcher. Set those things aside that you don't immediately understand but don't entirely dismiss them. That is simply arrogance. The intellectual is a fathead who completely dismisses that which he doesn't understand or what is related to him by the unschooled. Those who do that operate contrary to the scientific method. Even a failed experiment shouldn't be thrown out, but learned from. Or saved until the failure is understood. In light of that, "The Interview" link I posted earlier, the true threat is the cynicism that developed that whole school of thought. It is a process of destruction. Not only that, but of unchecked destruction. Just everything Rush wanted was worse than what we had. |
information suppression by universities
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:00:06 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:48:50 GMT, "JB" wrote: Excellent post. Thanks. I'll add one more notch on my LCD frame. The problem with QEX is not enough submissions. Well, they rejected one of mine many years ago. The problem was they never really said why. When I pressed the editor, he replied that he had enough submissions of sufficient quality. I tried again later and had it rejected because I wasn't an ARRL member at the time (because I was broke). I don't know what was going on, but I wasn't thrilled and never bothered again. As for the QST AM mods, I was thinking that was ATV, but maybe you were talking about something else. Something else was converting commercial land mobile FM radios from WBFM or later NBFM to AM (A3A) modulation. Mostly, it was adding a low level modulation circuit, and converting the power stages from Class C to Class A or AB. To me, it was a little like publishing an article today on converting a Prius Hybrid automobile to only run on gasoline. The same applies to QST. If there aren't enough submissions, the only recourse is to hire writers to do columns or fill the empiness with drivel and ads like 73. Probably true. I submitted an article in about 2002 on using the audio time delay through a repeater to do hyperbolic (Loran A style) vehicle location. I forgot why it was rejected because I ended up in the hospital and my memory from that period is rather muddled. When I inquired about the submission a year later, they said that they couldn't find it or that it was lost. Then, I mentioned that I still wasn't an ARRL member and all communications ceased. The best things to come out of 73 was the Star Trek communicator clone and Byte magazine. I hate how Ham Radio magazine died out. 73 published Joe Moell's column on amateur radio direction finding. To me, it was worth the price of a subscription. Before I tossed my archives, I ripped out and saved most of these issues. Wanna build a rotating antenna direction finder? The only references in ham radio land you'll find are in these 73 magazine issues. Same with various microwave columns. I could have done without Wayne Green's endless editorials. I was President of the local ham club for a while, and wound up doing the newletter too. For the three or four years of that, I only got 3 submissions from the membership. All the rest I had to either pull out of my A** every month or go around like a reporter and interrogate people. Our current newsletter editor complains about the same thing. http://www.k6bj.org Still, he manages to produce a superior ham radio newsletter. I used to submit irregular technical articles and obnoxious opinionated radio politix articles. However, one article that I spend considerable time writing was butchered beyond recognition. When I asked for an explanation, I got nothing. So, no more articles from me. On the other hand - What neat inventions can we come up with to share with the World, so it can be exploited and give reason to take more of our spectrum? It probably shouldn't be an invention. More likely, an unusual or interesting application of some existing technology. Your ATV camera for disaster services is a good example. Direction finding is still a common problem (i.e. stuck public safety transmitters). Perhaps demonstrating how some of the dumb|great ideas originating out FCC can be made to work (i.e. white space, ultra narrow band FM, on the fly TDMA, etc). I could think of lots of useful things to build, design, buy, or analyze. Interesting to note how public safety volunteers showed Los Angeles Sheriff how neat ATV was and they turned around and petitioned the FCC for those frequencies. We had some floods a few years ago. The levee broke along the Pajaro river. One of our members has a helicopter and volunteered to fly an ATV camera over the area for the sheriff. On screen was GPS position in APRS format. Everything worked and everyone was suitably impressed. Then, nothing. No clue exactly why, but my guess is that homebrew is not funded by Homeland Security. Oh well, we will probably all be shot in head by the next regime because we are an irritation. Nope. We will all be promoted to a position of responsibility, where we will be setup to fail, thus demonstrating that technologists are no better at running the country than politicians, crooks, bureaucrats, and thugs. How very weird. I am the pretty much acknowledged top technologist in my workplace. Yet i cannot get promoted. YMMV |
information suppression by universities
On Nov 30, 6:55*pm, JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:00:06 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:48:50 GMT, "JB" wrote: Excellent post. Thanks. *I'll add one more notch on my LCD frame. The problem with QEX is not enough submissions. Well, they rejected one of mine many years ago. *The problem was they never really said why. *When I pressed the editor, he replied that he had enough submissions of sufficient quality. *I tried again later and had it rejected because I wasn't an ARRL member at the time (because I was broke). *I don't know what was going on, but I wasn't thrilled and never bothered again. As for the QST AM mods, *I was thinking that was ATV, but maybe you were talking about something else. Something else was converting commercial land mobile FM radios from WBFM or later NBFM to AM (A3A) modulation. *Mostly, it was adding a low level modulation circuit, and converting the power stages from Class C to Class A or AB. *To me, it was a little like publishing an article today on converting a Prius Hybrid automobile to only run on gasoline. The same applies to QST. *If there aren't enough submissions, the only recourse is to hire writers to do columns or fill the empiness with drivel and ads like 73. Probably true. *I submitted an article in about 2002 on using the audio time delay through a repeater to do hyperbolic (Loran A style) vehicle location. *I forgot why it was rejected because I ended up in the hospital and my memory from that period is rather muddled. *When I inquired about the submission a year later, they said that they couldn't find it or that it was lost. *Then, I mentioned that I still wasn't an ARRL member and all communications ceased. The best things to come out of 73 was the Star Trek communicator clone and Byte magazine. *I hate how Ham Radio magazine died out. 73 published Joe Moell's column on amateur radio direction finding. To me, it was worth the price of a subscription. *Before I tossed my archives, I ripped out and saved most of these issues. *Wanna build a rotating antenna direction finder? *The only references in ham radio land you'll find are in these 73 magazine issues. *Same with various microwave columns. *I could have done without Wayne Green's endless editorials. I was President of the local ham club for a while, and wound up doing the newletter too. *For the three or four years of that, I only got 3 submissions from the membership. *All the rest I had to either pull out of my A** every month or go around like a reporter and interrogate people. Our current newsletter editor complains about the same thing. http://www.k6bj.org Still, he manages to produce a superior ham radio newsletter. *I used to submit irregular technical articles and obnoxious opinionated radio politix articles. *However, one article that I spend considerable time writing was butchered beyond recognition. *When I asked for an explanation, I got nothing. *So, no more articles from me. On the other hand - What neat inventions can we come up with to share with the World, so it can be exploited and give reason to take more of our spectrum? It probably shouldn't be an invention. *More likely, an unusual or interesting application of some existing technology. *Your ATV camera for disaster services is a good example. *Direction finding is still a common problem (i.e. stuck public safety transmitters). *Perhaps demonstrating how some of the dumb|great ideas originating out FCC can be made to work (i.e. white space, ultra narrow band FM, on the fly TDMA, etc). *I could think of lots of useful things to build, design, buy, or analyze. Interesting to note how public safety volunteers showed Los Angeles Sheriff how neat ATV was and they turned around and petitioned the FCC for those frequencies. We had some floods a few years ago. *The levee broke along the Pajaro river. *One of our members has a helicopter and volunteered to fly an ATV camera over the area for the sheriff. *On screen was GPS position in APRS format. *Everything worked and everyone was suitably impressed. *Then, nothing. *No clue exactly why, but my guess is that homebrew is not funded by Homeland Security. Oh well, we will probably all be shot in head by the next regime because we are an irritation. Nope. *We will all be promoted to a position of responsibility, where we will be setup to fail, thus demonstrating that technologists are no better at running the country than politicians, crooks, bureaucrats, and thugs. How very weird. *I am the pretty much acknowledged top technologist in my workplace. *Yet i cannot get promoted. YMMV If you exercise free speech then you divulge to all what you are and who you are.! |
information suppression by universities
JosephKK wrote:
... How very weird. I am the pretty much acknowledged top technologist in my workplace. Yet i cannot get promoted. YMMV Well, I really hate to break this to you, don't look for a recommendation from me ... How about anyone else? Regards, JS |
information suppression by universities
Art Unwin wrote:
... If you exercise free speech then you divulge to all what you are and who you are.! Hmmm, you are very correct. However, that "free speech" might just have been some "canned crap" he picked up ... Regards, JS |
information suppression by universities
JosephKK wrote:
... Defecation on your non-existent deity. Yeah, this just "all happened", right. I bet you see that a lot ... Regards, JS |
information suppression by universities
JosephKK wrote:
... Just everything Rush wanted was worse than what we had. I like listening to Rush, very entertaining ... I am unable to wrap my mind around the fact "they" pay him 40-50 million a year for such mind numbing dribble ... but hey, "they" got us here in the first place! Regards, JS |
information suppression by universities
Art Unwin wrote:
If you exercise free speech then you divulge to all what you are and who you are.! Please divulge full legal name, birthdate and birthplace, SSN, address, telephone number, mothers maiden name and all bank account and credit card numbers. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
information suppression by universities
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:55:02 -0800, JosephKK
wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:00:06 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote: Nope. We will all be promoted to a position of responsibility, where we will be setup to fail, thus demonstrating that technologists are no better at running the country than politicians, crooks, bureaucrats, and thugs. How very weird. I am the pretty much acknowledged top technologist in my workplace. Yet i cannot get promoted. YMMV That's because nobody has found a reason to want you to fail. There can be many reasons for this. Optimistically, you have a well managed company, that keeps people in positions where they are best suited. That's rather rare as most companies will follow the Peter's Principle method of promotion (rise to your level of incompetence). Another possibility is that you have successfully eliminated any and all competition for your position, thus making find a replacement impossible. Unless you have a suitable replacement trained and waiting, most companies will not your promotion to create vacuum. In some companies, a promotion is tracked by a raise in salary and benefits. In some countries and companies, it's actually impossible to get a raise without a change of title. Perhaps your company needs to manufacture a suitable position and title for your promotion? Note: Assassinating your boss is not a viable option. It's also possible that you have hit the glass ceiling, where promotion is no longer possible. For example, many family owned companies will not promote non-family members beyond a certain point. If you're the wrong race, religion, sex, age, or nationality, you will have problems getting a promotion. Same with failing to join the correct country club, attending semi-mandatory social occasions, wearing the wrong style clothes, attending the wrong church, and generally sticking out like a sore thumb. Conformity pays well. It's conceivable that you also lack sufficient initiative to obtain a promotion. Many managers assume that someone that keeps their mouth shut, does not need a promotion. Leaving your resume floating around your desk is great way to either indicate that it's time to move up or move out. Unfortunately, it can also get you fired, so use this trick sparingly. Anyway, if you need advice on what NOT to do in order to get promoted, I have a long list of personal experiences that eventually inspired me to become self-employed. I can't say that it was the right decision from the financial point of view. However, I can say that I probably saved a few companies from self destruction by removing myself from their management structure. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
information suppression by universities
On Nov 30, 8:26*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:55:02 -0800, JosephKK wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:00:06 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote: Nope. *We will all be promoted to a position of responsibility, where we will be setup to fail, thus demonstrating that technologists are no better at running the country than politicians, crooks, bureaucrats, and thugs. How very weird. *I am the pretty much acknowledged top technologist in my workplace. *Yet i cannot get promoted. YMMV That's because nobody has found a reason to want you to fail. *There can be many reasons for this. *Optimistically, you have a well managed company, that keeps people in positions where they are best suited. That's rather rare as most companies will follow the Peter's Principle method of promotion (rise to your level of incompetence). * Another possibility is that you have successfully eliminated any and all competition for your position, thus making find a replacement impossible. *Unless you have a suitable replacement trained and waiting, most companies will not your promotion to create vacuum. * In some companies, a promotion is tracked by a raise in salary and benefits. *In some countries and companies, it's actually impossible to get a raise without a change of title. *Perhaps your company needs to manufacture a suitable position and title for your promotion? Note: Assassinating your boss is not a viable option. It's also possible that you have hit the glass ceiling, where promotion is no longer possible. *For example, many family owned companies will not promote non-family members beyond a certain point. If you're the wrong race, religion, sex, age, or nationality, you will have problems getting a promotion. *Same with failing to join the correct country club, attending semi-mandatory social occasions, wearing the wrong style clothes, attending the wrong church, and generally sticking out like a sore thumb. *Conformity pays well. It's conceivable that you also lack sufficient initiative to obtain a promotion. *Many managers assume that someone that keeps their mouth shut, does not need a promotion. *Leaving your resume floating around your desk is great way to either indicate that it's time to move up or move out. *Unfortunately, it can also get you fired, so use this trick sparingly. Anyway, if you need advice on what NOT to do in order to get promoted, I have a long list of personal experiences that eventually inspired me to become self-employed. *I can't say that it was the right decision from the financial point of view. *However, I can say that I probably saved a few companies from self destruction by removing myself from their management structure. -- Jeff Liebermann * * 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558 My best friend H B Mutter N3CBW had a position of one of three military top judges where he was on call for any major criminal case which could involve the maximum sentence. However as a Judge he had his own ideas of morality that sometimes clashed with beaucrasy but he always held to his guns which is why I respected him so much. Eventually he was offered a generous retirement based on a perceived malady, so in the end he won. This was the only way out available to beaurocracy, the common man does not have such leverage and is blown away. He now lies at Arlington cemetary bless his soul, I miss him so much Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg |
information suppression by universities
|
information suppression by universities
On Nov 30, 9:29*pm, JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 16:46:13 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Nov 27, 12:58 pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Nov 25, 11:26 am, Jim Lux wrote: Jim IEEE state that if papers were open source it would threaten the presence of the IEEE? No.. it's that a significant part of IEEE's budget derives from publishing copyrighted standards and journals. One argument for the copyrighting of standards is that it provides a legal club to go after someone publishing an adulterated version. I'm not sure that really holds water, but there it is. The cost of actually printing the journals is significant, and has to come from somewhere. *They're not exactly huge circulation, and mostly have no advertising, but are printed on high quality stock with good quality typesetting. The physical printing costs are actually minimal, distribution costs more now. This statement was in regard to the high costs of obtaining copies from the IEEE without having to pay the high costs of belonging . The cost to get a single copy is quite high compared to the cost to get access to thousands by being a member (check out those CCC prices at the bottom of the first page.. they're fairly pricey.. a dozen papers a year and you've just paid for your membership and access to Xplore) Just a few years ago i could get physical reprints of articles from most journals for about $3 each, now electronic reprints cost $20 or more? *I think we all can figure out where the money is going. I understand the need for peer review by academics but not necessarily a private entity and the IEEE rights to publish such so, are the IEEE demanding SOLE ownership of presented papers? IEEE performs a useful function by organizing all those peer reviewers (finding them, getting the papers to them, haranguing them for their reviews, etc.).. Being an editor is a lot of work, and is often done as a labor of love by the editor (or, as "part of your job" in academe), as is being a decent reviewer. IEEE requests copyright transfer to them for papers published in their journals for a variety of reasons, and with a variety of exceptions. 1) Makes sure that you're not publishing the same thing in multiple places at the same time.. 2) If your work was done, e.g., on gov't contract, often, the contract requires that the paper be public domain, and the IEEE is cool with that. 3) The author can publish the paper on their own website with an appropriate disclaimer. I am assuming that all papers presented by the Universities as well as thesis papers belong to the parent university based on a recent antenna patent awarded to a University derived from a student dissertation. Not necessarily ("all" is pretty all-encompassing).. A lot depends on the funding source for the work. This leaves *an outstanding question !. If the university a public entity, reserves the rights of all papers arrived at the university then what rights do they hold that allows transference from the public domain of those rights to a private institution to the detriment of the public that finance them? Those rights were never in the public domain to begin with. One might argue that the underlying idea is in the public domain, but the written description of has a copyright that belongs to the author (except for a "work for hire") and the author gets to decide what they do with it. Funny thing about "work for hire", the hiring entity is the one with any legal rights here in *the US. *But the NIH for some strange reason does not assert its rights. *The IEEE does not publish work for hire generally, but charges for submissions. *And, I would argue that arranging for the publication of the work in a "learned journal" is a pretty effective way of disseminating the work to the general public. The fact that IEEE (or Inst of Physics or AAAS, etc.) get an assignment of copyright as part of the process is part of the cost of doing that publication. *And it's a fact that as online publication becomes easier, work IS being disseminated by these means. Yes, but more an more by others, and the academic journals reviewers are not paid. The other publishers do not do the review so quality suffers. *The old school publishers need to learn that they cannot just take it all. However, one should not disregard the significant value brought to the process by the formalized peer review system. Yes, it has flaws and can be (and has been) subverted, but it works moderately well. Compare to the situation a hundred or two hundred years ago. *I don't complain that "the system" isn't moving as rapidly as technology might allow, because the system has a fairly long time constant, which is actually a good thing, since it prevents rapid whipsawing to follow fashion. * A printed journal will still be readable 100 or 200 years from now. *The same cannot necessarily be said of djvu or pdf or tiff or other elecronic forms. I am not so sure about that. *The need for preservable media is being recognized. *It has even been discussed in learned journals. One should also not complain too loudly about the lack of heritage journals on line for free. *It costs a LOT to scan thing and put them online, particularly if they're searchable. *If you could convince Congress to do it as a service to mankind, that would be a worthy goal, but for now, someone's got to pay for it. Regards Art Unwin Spoke to my son about this subject as he works for a California University. He states that this subject is on a unstoppable role in several states because of diminishing distribution of papers. Together with high costs for separate papers that is also diminishing in demand.and was a money maker ( As jobs are lost so goes the membership costs I suppose) He said that some Universities are already changing from the old set up and google is being very agressive about it. Apparently there is already a group on the net with connections to all phases of science where you can obtain a UNPUBLISHED paper for a modest fee so there are new avenues emerging. Haven't got a policy statement from the local trustees at Champaign Illinois as yet. Regards Art |
information suppression by universities
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 02:05:01 GMT, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: If you exercise free speech then you divulge to all what you are and who you are.! Please divulge full legal name, birthdate and birthplace, SSN, address, telephone number, mothers maiden name and all bank account and credit card numbers. I installed pop off legs a long time ago. |
information suppression by universities
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:26:33 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:55:02 -0800, JosephKK wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:00:06 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote: Nope. We will all be promoted to a position of responsibility, where we will be setup to fail, thus demonstrating that technologists are no better at running the country than politicians, crooks, bureaucrats, and thugs. How very weird. I am the pretty much acknowledged top technologist in my workplace. Yet i cannot get promoted. YMMV That's because nobody has found a reason to want you to fail. There can be many reasons for this. Optimistically, you have a well managed company, that keeps people in positions where they are best suited. That's rather rare as most companies will follow the Peter's Principle method of promotion (rise to your level of incompetence). Another possibility is that you have successfully eliminated any and all competition for your position, thus making find a replacement impossible. Unless you have a suitable replacement trained and waiting, most companies will not your promotion to create vacuum. In some companies, a promotion is tracked by a raise in salary and benefits. In some countries and companies, it's actually impossible to get a raise without a change of title. Perhaps your company needs to manufacture a suitable position and title for your promotion? Note: Assassinating your boss is not a viable option. It's also possible that you have hit the glass ceiling, where promotion is no longer possible. For example, many family owned companies will not promote non-family members beyond a certain point. If you're the wrong race, religion, sex, age, or nationality, you will have problems getting a promotion. Same with failing to join the correct country club, attending semi-mandatory social occasions, wearing the wrong style clothes, attending the wrong church, and generally sticking out like a sore thumb. Conformity pays well. It's conceivable that you also lack sufficient initiative to obtain a promotion. Many managers assume that someone that keeps their mouth shut, does not need a promotion. Leaving your resume floating around your desk is great way to either indicate that it's time to move up or move out. Unfortunately, it can also get you fired, so use this trick sparingly. Anyway, if you need advice on what NOT to do in order to get promoted, I have a long list of personal experiences that eventually inspired me to become self-employed. I can't say that it was the right decision from the financial point of view. However, I can say that I probably saved a few companies from self destruction by removing myself from their management structure. Good stuff. I think i need to reconsider hanging out my own shingle. It is not the best time out there versus a stable position though. |
information suppression by universities
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 05:50:59 -0800, JosephKK
wrote: Good stuff. I think i need to reconsider hanging out my own shingle. It is not the best time out there versus a stable position though. Maybe. I'm not an authority on self-employment and small biz. However, I've been doing it for 25 years, so I must be doing something right. One of my "hobbies" was collecting business cards sitting on the counter at the local retail electronics parts supplier. Every time there was a layoff or downturn in the industry, a wide assortment of business cards for newly minted consultants would appear. I would grab a card, and scribble the date on the back. I would then wait to see how long they would last. 6 months was the running average before they found employment and/or decided consulting was not for them. A few moved out of the area. I wasn't very organized or accurate, but when the local economy sucked, there were perhaps 100 consultants. When it was going full blast, perhaps 10. A fairly small number survived over the years, and have built up a customer base and revenue source sufficient to maintain their lifestyle. Several have day jobs as well. One characteristic I noted was the higher up in corporate America they went, the smaller the likelihood of survival as a consultant. My guess is that this is because of their addiction to the corporate support structure. For example, I was horrified at the prospect of having to buy my own stationary supplies, instead of simply stealing them from the company. Another characteristic is that most consultants get their start by obtaining work from their former employers. That included me. If you burn your bridges when leaving a company, you will have problems. Later, as your contacts move to other companies, your business base will expand with them. If you have a mentor, do everything you can to make them happy. I would say that without the business provided by a very small number of industry contacts, I would have starved long ago. I should also mention that I started my biz taking on small consulting projects while still employed. I didn't need the money, but I was bored and knew that I would evenutally need the experience and contacts. At one point, I had illusions of designing and producing antennas. It's an ideal product. Few people understand how they work. Antennas tend to be surround by hype and are often close to magic. Testing is difficult and expensive. Product comparisons are non-existent. Religion and bias toward specific styles and manufacturers seem to be the prime criteria for selection. The weirder it looks, the better it sells. Aesthetic concerns have provided a whole new market. There are already some rather dubious antenna products on the market. Etc. In all, it's a perfectly acceptable small market waiting to be exploited. Hopefully, my marketing and sales expertise will adequately compensate for my marginal antenna design abilities. I had plans to build the product line using the audiophile model, where garish industrial design and endless ambiguous buzzwords have done quite well. Due to health problems, I doubt that I'll do anything, so it's all yours. Good luck. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
information suppression by universities
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
... At one point, I had illusions of designing and producing antennas. It's an ideal product. Few people understand how they work. Antennas tend to be surround by hype and are often close to magic. Testing is difficult and expensive. Product comparisons are non-existent. Religion and bias toward specific styles and manufacturers seem to be the prime criteria for selection. The weirder it looks, the better it sells. Aesthetic concerns have provided a whole new market. There are already some rather dubious antenna products on the market. Etc. In all, it's a perfectly acceptable small market waiting to be exploited. Hopefully, my marketing and sales expertise will adequately compensate for my marginal antenna design abilities. I had plans to build the product line using the audiophile model, where garish industrial design and endless ambiguous buzzwords have done quite well. Due to health problems, I doubt that I'll do anything, so it's all yours. Good luck. One of the most important paragraphs ever to have been posted to this NG ... The logic and energy brought to bear is nothing short of astounding, and provokes a "RIGHT ON, THUMBS UP" out of me ... :-) However, the part of success in selling snake oil, "In all, it's a perfectly acceptable small market waiting to be exploited", I'd have to see to believe ... the market seems saturated already! Warm regards, JS |
information suppression by universities
Defecation on your non-existent deity.
Yeah, this just "all happened", right. I bet you see that a lot ... Regards, JS Needs to be reminded that gravity doesn't work that way. Stand on your head and try it. |
information suppression by universities
Defecation on your non-existent deity. Yeah, this just "all happened", right. I bet you see that a lot ... Needs to be reminded that gravity doesn't work that way. Stand on your head and try it. Repeat ten times and average the results. |
information suppression by universities
JB wrote:
... Needs to be reminded that gravity doesn't work that way. Stand on your head and try it. Better yet, grab a hand full of plastic, glass, metal, wood, etc. and toss it into a mud-puddle, come back in a few million years and see what you can "dig up", what has "evolved" into being ... While I cannot absolutely rule out molecules, atoms and other assorted particles, materials and wavelengths of energies arranging themselves into complex organisms, at least one of which has self-awareness--it flies in the face of all forms of logic/maths/sciences I have ever had contact with ... but true, ya' never know, ya' just never know. Regards, JS |
information suppression by universities
"Art Unwin" wrote in message
... On Nov 30, 4:47 am, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... THEFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS BY PRIVATE ENTITIES so go file a criminal complaint... even at 'public' universities not all research work is paid for by the public. many projects are funded by private companies and other entities who retain the right to such work and any patents that may result. now of course most patents are publicly available, but not all of them... go figure that one out. of course how much more are you willing to be taxed to support electronic publishing of everything written at a public university? that service doesn't come for free, and the sheer volume of that stuff would make it downright expensive. I have asked the trusties what the policy is regarding this before I proceed. I am in the rujst belt and there are many engineers that have and are going to be laid off. They will not be able to afford to stay abreast of things and thus will be hurtin the coming depression. Not good for the Countries future I would say Art What irks me is the video conference links that major universities have so that their Russian counterparts can participate in the board meetings. Some kind of open access thing. Them and Ron Burkle. What was this about suppression? |
information suppression by universities
JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 16:46:13 -0800 (PST), wrote: The cost of actually printing the journals is significant, and has to come from somewhere. They're not exactly huge circulation, and mostly have no advertising, but are printed on high quality stock with good quality typesetting. The physical printing costs are actually minimal, distribution costs more now. Say it costs about $0.05/page for offset printing on glossy stock (no idea if that's right, but it's probably within a factor of 10). A 100 page journal is then $5 in raw production costs, per unit. (and we'll assuming binding, etc. is included) But you have to add typography and editing and composition. I'd find it hard to believe that a complete journal could be set up in less than 100 work hours. So, about $10K. If the circulation of the journal is 200 copies, then that's another $10K in repro costs. You're up to $10/issue, before you've distributed it, maintained the subscriber list, etc. These things all cost money (been there, provided the service, made a living from it, barely). Check out what the "print to order" publishers charge. (e.g. Lulu.com) (100 page, paperback perfect bound is about $5.30, exclusive of shipping) ] This statement was in regard to the high costs of obtaining copies from the IEEE without having to pay the high costs of belonging . The cost to get a single copy is quite high compared to the cost to get access to thousands by being a member (check out those CCC prices at the bottom of the first page.. they're fairly pricey.. a dozen papers a year and you've just paid for your membership and access to Xplore) Just a few years ago i could get physical reprints of articles from most journals for about $3 each, now electronic reprints cost $20 or more? I think we all can figure out where the money is going. I think you'd have to go back quite a ways in time to get to $3/article. Grabbing a few things on my desk, a 2001 IEEE Proceedings article runs you $10. A paper in a 2004 Trans Antennas and Prop is $20. A 1982 Proceedings of IEEE paper runs $0.75. Jim Breakall's paper on HF propagation modeling over mountains in 1994 IEEE Trans A&P is $4.00 Of course, those are just the costs if you photocopy it yourself and submit the fee to the copyright clearance center. And, a lot of times, the author of the paper will send you a copy, if you write and ask. (That's actually one of the fun parts about publishing.. Getting those post cards from obscure places in the world 10 years later: "Meine geehrte Kollege, bitte schicken Sie mir ....") Granted if the author is dead or unreachable, that's a challenge. Funny thing about "work for hire", the hiring entity is the one with any legal rights here in the US. But the NIH for some strange reason does not assert its rights. One would have to look at the specific contracts/grant language, but I'll bet they require dissemination in something like PubMed these days. The days of the Principal Investigator keeping their data secret for decades while they dribble out a paper a year, are dying, if not dead, at least for publicly funded work. On NASA missions, there's typically a clause that requires dissemination of the raw data from an instrument within 6 months, and you're required to have budgeted for that dissemination in your proposal. The IEEE does not publish work for hire generally, but charges for submissions. Of course the IEEE publishes work for hire. If you work for Boeing, write a paper, and get it published, Boeing owns the copyright (as work for hire), and executes a license to IEEE to use it. And they don't always charge for submissions. My very first published paper (wasn't with IEEE, as it happens) had the page fees waived, because I was in high school at the time. |
information suppression by universities
John Smith wrote:
JB wrote: ... Needs to be reminded that gravity doesn't work that way. Stand on your head and try it. Better yet, grab a hand full of plastic, glass, metal, wood, etc. and toss it into a mud-puddle, come back in a few million years and see what you can "dig up", what has "evolved" into being ... While I cannot absolutely rule out molecules, atoms and other assorted particles, materials and wavelengths of energies arranging themselves into complex organisms, at least one of which has self-awareness--it flies in the face of all forms of logic/maths/sciences I have ever had contact with ... but true, ya' never know, ya' just never know. Self-arranging and self replication are actually easy enough to do that the old definition of life that depends on that have been discarded for much tighter definitions, Otherwise we would already be able to claim that we created life. As an example, lipids, or phospholipids, are a common substance (read oils) that have the tendency to form into small bilayer spheres that isolate the interior from the exterior world. Then what is needed is for the right compounds to get trapped inside that sphere, and maybe something interesting will happen. http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...npu=1&mbid=yhp A immune system analog: http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2002/nanoarch.htm Point is, these things are not some impossible to happen, "just so" scheme. As time goes on, it looks more and more like on a planet capable of sustaining life, life will happen. Now if someone wanted to claim that some entity made that planet that could support life, then these things happened - that is a different story. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
information suppression by universities
Michael Coslo wrote:
... Self-arranging and self replication are actually easy enough to do that the old definition of life that depends on that have been discarded for much tighter definitions, Otherwise we would already be able to claim that we created life. As an example, lipids, or phospholipids, are a common substance (read oils) that have the tendency to form into small bilayer spheres that isolate the interior from the exterior world. Then what is needed is for the right compounds to get trapped inside that sphere, and maybe something interesting will happen. http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...npu=1&mbid=yhp A immune system analog: http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2002/nanoarch.htm Point is, these things are not some impossible to happen, "just so" scheme. As time goes on, it looks more and more like on a planet capable of sustaining life, life will happen. Now if someone wanted to claim that some entity made that planet that could support life, then these things happened - that is a different story. - 73 de Mike N3LI - I'd say that was the best argument for aliens I have ever seen ... Since the universe is some ~13.7 billion years old, and the earth only ~6 billion ... it would be quite interesting to meet one of those races who are ~1 billion years ahead of us ... I am waiting, indeed, have been for some time now. Regards, JS |
information suppression by universities
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:58:09 -0800, John Smith
wrote: However, the part of success in selling snake oil, "In all, it's a perfectly acceptable small market waiting to be exploited", I'd have to see to believe ... the market seems saturated already! Acording to my mentor (now retired), the secret to success for a small business is to find a narrow corner of the market, so narrow that it won't attract the attention of the big guys, and do everything you can to own it. Small companies just don't have the resources of the big guys. The trick is to avoid them, not lock horns with the big guys.. Therefore, I don't see anyone going into the land mobile, TV, tower, GPS, cellular, or car antenna business. These certainly are saturated, although you might be able to compete on a cost basis. Where small companies have succeeded are in the niche markets, such as Stepper IR, various weird CB antenna contrivances, and wi-fi antennas. If you've got connections in Homeland Security, consider military and paramilitary antenna system. As for snake oil, I don't consider giving the customer what they want to be snake oil. If the market demands garrish, weird looking, strange, camouflaged, and/or colorful antennas, it's not snake oil. Several vendors have demonstrated that weird looking sells well. If that's what the customer wants, I don't see a problem. It's also possible to produce deluxe versions of common antennas. For example, I suspect a gold plated antenna, with rare earth doping to improve conductivity, and ceramic insulators made from clay found in Area 51, to be sellable. It's not that far from what I read in the audiophile catalogs, with their $500 power cords, wooden amplifier boxes, glass turntables, and acoustic pretzel speaker enclosures. You might not sell too many of these deluxe versions, but you'll make lots of money on each one. http://www.audioadvisor.com http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=CRGRPC Remember, the surest sign of success is pollution. Since the market for antenna products are not yet totally polluted, I don't consider the market to be anywhere near saturated or successful. -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS |
information suppression by universities
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
As for snake oil, I don't consider giving the customer what they want to be snake oil. If the market demands garrish, weird looking, strange, camouflaged, and/or colorful antennas, it's not snake oil. Several vendors have demonstrated that weird looking sells well. If that's what the customer wants, I don't see a problem. I'm thinking of pink dipoles for the YL Hamettes! It's also possible to produce deluxe versions of common antennas. For example, I suspect a gold plated antenna, with rare earth doping to improve conductivity, and ceramic insulators made from clay found in Area 51, to be sellable. It's not that far from what I read in the audiophile catalogs, with their $500 power cords, wooden amplifier boxes, glass turntables, and acoustic pretzel speaker enclosures. You might not sell too many of these deluxe versions, but you'll make lots of money on each one. http://www.audioadvisor.com http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=CRGRPC Of course, the manufacturer would have to live with themselves. I would go as far as the goofy pink antenna I mentioned above. I don't think I would have the lack of integrity to make the bogus claims made for stuff like the Audiophile industry does. They have a distinct Carney/Rube thing going on with their customers. I got it! My urine contains special compounds because of my consumption of asparagus, chocolate and beer. This cause my urine to have special properties that cause magnetic particles to increase their flux concentration, giving increased power output, more brilliant lows and Highs, and making for much less listening fatigue. I will sell bottles of the miracle liquid for 1000 dollars per liter. However, as everyone knows, ther eis nothing like freshness for the important compounds, so for 25 thousand dollars plus air and food expensies, I will come to visit and pee on your speakers...... - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
information suppression by universities
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:03:30 -0500, Michael Coslo
wrote: I will sell bottles of the miracle liquid for 1000 dollars per liter. However, as everyone knows, ther eis nothing like freshness for the important compounds, so for 25 thousand dollars plus air and food expensies, I will come to visit and pee on your speakers...... - 73 de Mike N3LI - Sorry, but a similar product has already been invented and been on the market for about 5 years: http://j-walk.com/other/wifispray/ The ladyfriend would probably buy the pink antennas. She just bought a pink bicycle. In disgust, I bought her pink garden tools and a stuffed pink pig. That might also explain why I'm spending the evening posting useless usenet drivel, instead of engaging in debauchery. Anyway, pink is the "in" color, so I guess it's ok: http://images.google.com/images?q=pink+camouflage http://images.google.com/images?q=pink+products At one time I was labelled an "effet commie liberal pinko swine" (or something like that), but that was long ago. -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS |
information suppression by universities
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
... Remember, the surest sign of success is pollution. Since the market for antenna products are not yet totally polluted, I don't consider the market to be anywhere near saturated or successful. Jeff: Sorry to have clipped your post so severely, however, anyone with a real newsgroup reader has access to the original ... You might be right, I was just expressing an opinion, one which is impossible to justify ... :-) Warm regards, JS |
information suppression by universities
Michael Coslo wrote:
... My urine contains special compounds because of my consumption of asparagus, chocolate and beer. This cause my urine to have special properties that cause magnetic particles to increase their flux concentration, giving increased power output, more brilliant lows and Highs, and making for much less listening fatigue. ... - 73 de Mike N3LI - My gawd man! Finally, something which makes sense. Say they hire you to disperse your urine beneath these antennas in question, my gawd, ground conductivity, conductivity and factors would off scale! Let us see EZNEC take that into consideration! ROFLOL!!!! GOOD POST! wink Regards, JS |
information suppression by universities
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:03:30 -0500, Michael Coslo wrote: I will sell bottles of the miracle liquid for 1000 dollars per liter. However, as everyone knows, ther eis nothing like freshness for the important compounds, so for 25 thousand dollars plus air and food expensies, I will come to visit and pee on your speakers...... - 73 de Mike N3LI - Sorry, but a similar product has already been invented and been on the market for about 5 years: http://j-walk.com/other/wifispray/ The ladyfriend would probably buy the pink antennas. She just bought a pink bicycle. In disgust, I bought her pink garden tools and a stuffed pink pig. That might also explain why I'm spending the evening posting useless usenet drivel, instead of engaging in debauchery. Anyway, pink is the "in" color, so I guess it's ok: http://images.google.com/images?q=pink+camouflage http://images.google.com/images?q=pink+products At one time I was labelled an "effet commie liberal pinko swine" (or something like that), but that was long ago. In the outdoor sporting equipment trades (aka huntin/shootin/fishin) the phrase is "pink it and shrink it".. |
information suppression by universities
Michael Coslo wrote:
... Self-arranging and self replication are actually easy enough to do that the old definition of life that depends on that have been discarded for much tighter definitions, Otherwise we would already be able to claim that we created life. As an example, lipids, or phospholipids, are a common substance (read oils) that have the tendency to form into small bilayer spheres that isolate the interior from the exterior world. Then what is needed is for the right compounds to get trapped inside that sphere, and maybe something interesting will happen. http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...npu=1&mbid=yhp A immune system analog: http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2002/nanoarch.htm Point is, these things are not some impossible to happen, "just so" scheme. As time goes on, it looks more and more like on a planet capable of sustaining life, life will happen. Now if someone wanted to claim that some entity made that planet that could support life, then these things happened - that is a different story. - 73 de Mike N3LI - You know, in your particular case, I have been too nice ... Nothing yet, has been a human creation which even comes close to mimicking a very lowly virus ... You are an idiot, all your posts here have only described you sheer idiot nature in exact detail ... you are loathsome, you are an absolute idiot, you are something I pick off my shoe when walking my dog and not paying adequate attention ... Now, let those who find you different come to the aid of you ego ... I wipe you off like the chit from my boot ... Regards, JS |
information suppression by universities
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
. . . At one point, I had illusions of designing and producing antennas. It's an ideal product. Few people understand how they work. Antennas tend to be surround by hype and are often close to magic. Testing is difficult and expensive. Product comparisons are non-existent. Religion and bias toward specific styles and manufacturers seem to be the prime criteria for selection. The weirder it looks, the better it sells. Aesthetic concerns have provided a whole new market. There are already some rather dubious antenna products on the market. Etc. In all, it's a perfectly acceptable small market waiting to be exploited. Hopefully, my marketing and sales expertise will adequately compensate for my marginal antenna design abilities. I had plans to build the product line using the audiophile model, where garish industrial design and endless ambiguous buzzwords have done quite well. Due to health problems, I doubt that I'll do anything, so it's all yours. I suggest you stick with the amateur market, which pretty much fits your description. There are other antenna customers, though, who depend intensely on antenna performance for the operation and performance of their products and missions. All my consulting clients, and a large number of my professional software customers, are in this category. They can't afford careless or substandard design, and simply won't tolerate it. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
information suppression by universities
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:03:30 -0500, Michael Coslo wrote: I will sell bottles of the miracle liquid for 1000 dollars per liter. However, as everyone knows, ther eis nothing like freshness for the important compounds, so for 25 thousand dollars plus air and food expensies, I will come to visit and pee on your speakers...... - 73 de Mike N3LI - Sorry, but a similar product has already been invented and been on the market for about 5 years: http://j-walk.com/other/wifispray/ Oh dear, people have to look out for bogus products like that! My wizz is the wonderful wizz, the wizz that was, becuz becuz becuz becuz...... becuz of the wonderful things it does.... The ladyfriend would probably buy the pink antennas. She just bought a pink bicycle. In disgust, I bought her pink garden tools and a stuffed pink pig. That might also explain why I'm spending the evening posting useless usenet drivel, instead of engaging in debauchery. Anyway, pink is the "in" color, so I guess it's ok: http://images.google.com/images?q=pink+camouflage http://images.google.com/images?q=pink+products Pink really does suck as a color. My mentor, Opus the penguin, said it best. If a million people believe a wrong thing, it is still a wrong thing. - 73 d eMike N3LI - |
information suppression by universities
John Smith wrote:
You know, in your particular case, I have been too nice ... Nothing yet, has been a human creation which even comes close to mimicking a very lowly virus ... And yet, if you are so sure, why do you not have the courage of your convictions to say, "Man cannot and never ever will create such a thing as a lowly virus. Your sentence leaves open the possibility that man might create such a thing tomorrow, next week, some time. You are an idiot, all your posts here have only described you sheer idiot nature in exact detail ... you are loathsome, you are an absolute idiot, you are something I pick off my shoe when walking my dog and not paying adequate attention ... And oddly enough, that doesn't bother me much, or at all. Everyone is an idiot in someone's book. I gave you references, I give you a reasoned post, even gave you a part in agreement that there is a possibility that some being being created it all. Your response is that I am fecal matter on your shoe. I am the idiot. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com