CW wrote:
Lame, really lame.

I am really sorry you felt so.



Swingman wrote:
...SNIP.... Example: One of
Einstein's theories (can't off the top of my head remember which) is now
being considered to be possibly invalid. Something that for decades was accepted.


That is no longer the case (it had to do with a recent experiment result
that had neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light), which was
apparently the false result of sloppy work on the part of the researchers
who did not test all their cable connections ... so it appears Einstein is
still good to go.

Until it may be disproved. That was my only real point for bringing that
up (I had not heard more on it).
My point was theories do get disproved, until they do - they get
accepted as truth, though many scientists themselves know that it is not
the case. It is partly what helps the world today have such an ambiguous
definition of reality and truth.

Don't misunderstand. I am not saying humans never understand something.
My opinion is they don't usually - and they don't know when they do or
when they don't so it is called a theory. The best hope is it doesn't
get proven wrong - because, until God tells us - it doesn't get proven
right (meaning there is always a chance it will be disproved). Hence -
faith, thus religion.

Mike
--
parksfamily2 ------ ---- --- gmail ----- ----- com
replace dashes with correct signs

On 2/25/2012 5:13 PM, Michael Joel wrote:

Swingman wrote:
...SNIP.... Example: One of
Einstein's theories (can't off the top of my head remember which) is now
being considered to be possibly invalid. Something that for decades
was accepted.


That is no longer the case (it had to do with a recent experiment result
that had neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light), which was
apparently the false result of sloppy work on the part of the researchers
who did not test all their cable connections ... so it appears
Einstein is
still good to go.

Until it may be disproved. That was my only real point for bringing that
up (I had not heard more on it).
My point was theories do get disproved, until they do - they get
accepted as truth, though many scientists themselves know that it is not
the case.

Can't argue with that. We currently see it in the "climate change"
debate, on both sides.

It is partly what helps the world today have such an ambiguous
definition of reality and truth.

Can't argue with that either. Particularly considering our one party,
with two wings, political system.

Don't misunderstand. I am not saying humans never understand something.
My opinion is they don't usually - and they don't know when they do or
when they don't so it is called a theory.

Well, I could give you the accepted definitions, but we just got
finished tamping that argument down, so don't want to open another can
of the same worms.

The best hope is it doesn't
get proven wrong - because, until God tells us - it doesn't get proven
right (meaning there is always a chance it will be disproved). Hence -
faith, thus religion.

Well, I'm not necessarily a believer ... but I did fight for your right
to believe what you feel, if that helps.

(At least that was what some of us were convinced we were doing at the
time ... but it may not last.)


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

In article ,
says...

CW wrote:
Lame, really lame.

I am really sorry you felt so.



Swingman wrote:
...SNIP.... Example: One of
Einstein's theories (can't off the top of my head remember which) is now
being considered to be possibly invalid. Something that for decades was accepted.


That is no longer the case (it had to do with a recent experiment result
that had neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light), which was
apparently the false result of sloppy work on the part of the researchers
who did not test all their cable connections ... so it appears Einstein is
still good to go.

Until it may be disproved. That was my only real point for bringing that
up (I had not heard more on it).
My point was theories do get disproved, until they do - they get
accepted as truth, though many scientists themselves know that it is not
the case. It is partly what helps the world today have such an ambiguous
definition of reality and truth.

Don't misunderstand. I am not saying humans never understand something.
My opinion is they don't usually - and they don't know when they do or
when they don't so it is called a theory. The best hope is it doesn't
get proven wrong - because, until God tells us - it doesn't get proven
right (meaning there is always a chance it will be disproved). Hence -
faith, thus religion.

I don't know where Swingman gets the idea that the recent neutrino
results came about because of "sloppy work by researchers who did not
test all their cable connections". Other researchers at a different
laboratory had already achieved similar results and other researchers
are now attempting to replicate the experiment. It's taken seriously by
real scientists.

However, your notion that "theories get accepted as truth until they are
disproven" is, quite, frankly, bull****. Science resists new models
tooth and claw and they are not "accepted as truth" until they have been
thoroughly tested. You think relativity was just accepted because some
patent clerk that nobody had ever heard of said so? You think the Big
Bang was accepted because some priest nobody had ever heard of said so?
Now we accept relativity because it has been thoroughly tested for more
than a century and so far has not been found wanting. But we also
recognize that it is incomplete.

If people who are not scientists accept the pronouncements of scientists
as revealed truth, that has nothing to do with science and everything to
do with the crappy job we do of educating people about how science
works.

As for not knowing when they do or don't understand something and that's
why it's called a theory, more bull****. When someone comes up with a
notion it's called a "hypothesis" and we don't know if we understand
something at that point. When that hypothesis has been tested enough it
becomes "theory" and theory is sound enough to allow us to design
computers and airplanes and nuclear reactors and walk on the Moon. It
may be wrong in some detail but it's much closer to "right" than the
Bible's "pi exactly equals 3" with which you can't even design a wagon
wheel.

"J. Clarke" wrote in
in.local:

I don't know where Swingman gets the idea that the recent neutrino
results came about because of "sloppy work by researchers who did not
test all their cable connections". Other researchers at a different
laboratory had already achieved similar results and other researchers
are now attempting to replicate the experiment. It's taken seriously by
real scientists.

I agree with the statements that I snipped. I don't agree with the
criticism of Swingman's statements. It is a fact that the conclusion of
faster than light neutrinos was due to data from a bad cable connection
between a GPS-instrument to accurately define time and the computer the
guys used. We return you to regularly scheduled programming ...


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in
in.local:

I don't know where Swingman gets the idea that the recent neutrino
results came about because of "sloppy work by researchers who did not
test all their cable connections". Other researchers at a different
laboratory had already achieved similar results and other researchers
are now attempting to replicate the experiment. It's taken
seriously by real scientists.

I agree with the statements that I snipped.

Dude - you can't do that! You can't say I agree with what I snipped - after
you snipped it! That just ain't right!


--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in
in.local:

I don't know where Swingman gets the idea that the recent neutrino
results came about because of "sloppy work by researchers who did
not test all their cable connections". Other researchers at a
different laboratory had already achieved similar results and other
researchers are now attempting to replicate the experiment. It's
taken seriously by real scientists.

I agree with the statements that I snipped.

Dude - you can't do that! You can't say I agree with what I snipped -
after you snipped it! That just ain't right!

Clearly, you don't understand my strategy!!!



--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 3/1/2012 1:48 PM, Han wrote:
"J. wrote in
in.local:

I don't know where Swingman gets the idea that the recent neutrino
results came about because of "sloppy work by researchers who did not
test all their cable connections". Other researchers at a different
laboratory had already achieved similar results and other researchers
are now attempting to replicate the experiment. It's taken seriously by
real scientists.

I agree with the statements that I snipped. I don't agree with the
criticism of Swingman's statements. It is a fact that the conclusion of
faster than light neutrinos was due to data from a bad cable connection
between a GPS-instrument to accurately define time and the computer the
guys used. We return you to regularly scheduled programming ...

Couple of things:

I pay no attention to Clarke's BS, whatsoever.

On the subject of neutrino's superluminal motion, Einstein is still
laughing up his sleeve.

There, I did it! A word new to my ken, and used in a sentence!

"superluminal"

Great word, eh? Gotta love it ....

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

Swingman wrote in
news
On 3/1/2012 1:48 PM, Han wrote:
"J. wrote in
in.local:

I don't know where Swingman gets the idea that the recent neutrino
results came about because of "sloppy work by researchers who did
not test all their cable connections". Other researchers at a
different laboratory had already achieved similar results and other
researchers are now attempting to replicate the experiment. It's
taken seriously by real scientists.

I agree with the statements that I snipped. I don't agree with the
criticism of Swingman's statements. It is a fact that the conclusion
of faster than light neutrinos was due to data from a bad cable
connection between a GPS-instrument to accurately define time and the
computer the guys used. We return you to regularly scheduled
programming ...

Couple of things:

I pay no attention to Clarke's BS, whatsoever.

Good for you, but others might not know "Clarke's BS", so I tried to set
them straight.

On the subject of neutrino's superluminal motion, Einstein is still
laughing up his sleeve.

There, I did it! A word new to my ken, and used in a sentence!

"superluminal"

Great word, eh? Gotta love it ....

Yup!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 3/1/2012 4:17 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
news
On 3/1/2012 1:48 PM, Han wrote:
"J. wrote in
in.local:

I don't know where Swingman gets the idea that the recent neutrino
results came about because of "sloppy work by researchers who did
not test all their cable connections". Other researchers at a
different laboratory had already achieved similar results and other
researchers are now attempting to replicate the experiment. It's
taken seriously by real scientists.

I agree with the statements that I snipped. I don't agree with the
criticism of Swingman's statements. It is a fact that the conclusion
of faster than light neutrinos was due to data from a bad cable
connection between a GPS-instrument to accurately define time and the
computer the guys used. We return you to regularly scheduled
programming ...

Couple of things:

I pay no attention to Clarke's BS, whatsoever.


Good for you, but others might not know "Clarke's BS", so I tried to set
them straight.

A rule if thumb, when some one disagrees or contradicts most everything
you say for the sake of doing that, you filter him. Clark fit that
description early on.



On the subject of neutrino's superluminal motion, Einstein is still
laughing up his sleeve.

There, I did it! A word new to my ken, and used in a sentence!

"superluminal"

Great word, eh? Gotta love it ....

Yup!!


Strategery

On 3/2/2012 7:25 AM, Leon wrote:
On 3/1/2012 4:17 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in


"superluminal"

Great word, eh? Gotta love it ....

Yup!!


Strategery

Yabbut it ain't in the bible..er ... dictionary.


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

On 3/2/2012 9:36 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 3/2/2012 7:25 AM, Leon wrote:
On 3/1/2012 4:17 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in


"superluminal"

Great word, eh? Gotta love it ....

Yup!!


Strategery

Yabbut it ain't in the bible..er ... dictionary.



It will be, I bet'cha~ LOL

Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
Edward A. Falk wrote:

(Me, I finally decided it was time to get a biscuit joiner rather
than cut them with a router.)

Aaaand, I went and bought a cheap one on eBay. A PC 557 for $50.

However it needs work; ...

Follow-up. Turns out it had a broken part. An irreplacable broken
part.

Here's what I did:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Crea...er-tool-where/

I swear, 3d printing will be the next industrial revolution.


That is seriously cool! Just out of curiosity - what did it cost you to
get that part "printed" out and shipped?

--

-Mike-

(Edward A. Falk) wrote in
:

In article ,
Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
Edward A. Falk wrote:

(Me, I finally decided it was time to get a biscuit joiner rather
than cut them with a router.)

Aaaand, I went and bought a cheap one on eBay. A PC 557 for $50.

However it needs work; ...

Follow-up. Turns out it had a broken part. An irreplacable broken
part.

Here's what I did:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Crea...rt-for-a-power
-tool-where/

I swear, 3d printing will be the next industrial revolution.

FWIW, I have a Dewalt DW682K that I have used a few times, but want to
get rid of. Complete with case and a supply of several kinds of
biscuits. I paid $190 for it 9 years ago. What should I ask for this?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
Edward A. Falk wrote:

(Me, I finally decided it was time to get a biscuit joiner rather
than cut them with a router.)

Aaaand, I went and bought a cheap one on eBay. A PC 557 for $50.

However it needs work; ...

Follow-up. Turns out it had a broken part. An irreplacable broken
part.

Here's what I did:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Crea...art-for-a-powe
r-tool-where/

I swear, 3d printing will be the next industrial revolution.


That is seriously cool! Just out of curiosity - what did it cost you
to get that part "printed" out and shipped?

Wow indeed, really cool!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 11/16/2012 10:20 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Crea...er-tool-where/

Very cool.

I swear, 3d printing will be the next industrial revolution.

I had the same feeling the first time I saw it. Glad to have lived long
enough to see it.

I have the stl plugin for SU, but couldn't get your file to open
(Exception NaN). I suspect if might have to do with the import options,
like perhaps the units used?

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

Han wrote:
(Edward A. Falk) wrote in
:

In article ,
Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
Edward A. Falk wrote:

(Me, I finally decided it was time to get a biscuit joiner rather
than cut them with a router.)

Aaaand, I went and bought a cheap one on eBay. A PC 557 for $50.

However it needs work; ...

Follow-up. Turns out it had a broken part. An irreplacable broken
part.

Here's what I did:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Crea...rt-for-a-power
-tool-where/

I swear, 3d printing will be the next industrial revolution.

FWIW, I have a Dewalt DW682K that I have used a few times, but want to
get rid of. Complete with case and a supply of several kinds of
biscuits. I paid $190 for it 9 years ago. What should I ask for this?


Has it been stored inside or outside for the last 9 years?

Bill wrote in :

Han wrote:
(Edward A. Falk) wrote in
:

In article ,
Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
Edward A. Falk wrote:

(Me, I finally decided it was time to get a biscuit joiner rather
than cut them with a router.)

Aaaand, I went and bought a cheap one on eBay. A PC 557 for $50.

However it needs work; ...

Follow-up. Turns out it had a broken part. An irreplacable broken
part.

Here's what I did:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Crea...part-for-a-pow
er -tool-where/

I swear, 3d printing will be the next industrial revolution.

FWIW, I have a Dewalt DW682K that I have used a few times, but want
to get rid of. Complete with case and a supply of several kinds of
biscuits. I paid $190 for it 9 years ago. What should I ask for
this?


Has it been stored inside or outside for the last 9 years?

It is in fine condition. I don't store tools outside.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote:


FWIW, I have a Dewalt DW682K that I have used a few times, but want
to
get rid of. Complete with case and a supply of several kinds of
biscuits. I paid $190 for it 9 years ago. What should I ask for
this?

---------------------------------------------
How does $100 + freight sound?

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:50a80217$0$38593
:


"Han" wrote:


FWIW, I have a Dewalt DW682K that I have used a few times, but want
to
get rid of. Complete with case and a supply of several kinds of
biscuits. I paid $190 for it 9 years ago. What should I ask for
this?

---------------------------------------------
How does $100 + freight sound?

Lew

That sounds fine by me. Contact by email (opahan and yahoo as domain),
if this is for yourself, or if anyone else is interested.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Han" wrote:


FWIW, I have a Dewalt DW682K that I have used a few times, but want
to
get rid of. Complete with case and a supply of several kinds of
biscuits. I paid $190 for it 9 years ago. What should I ask for
this?

---------------------------------------------
How does $100 + freight sound?

Lew

I'm glad you're not going to be cheap about it Lew. Congratulations!

"Han" wrote:

FWIW, I have a Dewalt DW682K that I have used a few times, but want
to
get rid of. Complete with case and a supply of several kinds of
biscuits. I paid $190 for it 9 years ago. What should I ask for
this?
---------------------------------------------
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

How does $100 + freight sound?
-------------------------------------------------
"Han" wrote:

That sounds fine by me. Contact by email (opahan and yahoo as
domain),
if this is for yourself, or if anyone else is interested.
--------------------------------------------
Read and understand what I posted.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:50a8459d$0$1394
:

"Han" wrote:

FWIW, I have a Dewalt DW682K that I have used a few times, but want
to
get rid of. Complete with case and a supply of several kinds of
biscuits. I paid $190 for it 9 years ago. What should I ask for
this?
---------------------------------------------
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

How does $100 + freight sound?
-------------------------------------------------
"Han" wrote:

That sounds fine by me. Contact by email (opahan and yahoo as
domain),
if this is for yourself, or if anyone else is interested.
--------------------------------------------
Read and understand what I posted.

Lew

I replied the way I did because it wasn't clear to me whether you were
personally interested or not. If I had to guess, you were just giving an
opinion as to what the value might be. But I have misunderstood before.
Better to be clear and unambiguous. No value judgements.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid