On 22/11/2021 10:25, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <sne4aa$hr$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Any company, and organisation for that matter, I've encountered of size
>> is Windows based except for niche use cases (creatives and astronomers
>> like Macs). It's nowt to do with news or PR, it's what I observe.
>
> I've agreed that's common. But it tells you more about the limited
> experience and assumptions of many of them. Not a judgement based on
> actually being able to compare the range of options in an informed manner.

I worked betimes with multinational IT consultants who said they might
have sold "free" alternatives to Word and Excel to some large businesses
but with nothing to match Outlook's functionalities senior managers
would just laugh as they showed them the door. I'd be interested to
hear of a medium-to-large enterprise* that has dumped Outlook.

*other than Munich's city admin :)

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 22/11/2021 10:25, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article <sne4aa$hr$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Any company, and organisation for that matter, I've encountered of size
>>> is Windows based except for niche use cases (creatives and astronomers
>>> like Macs). It's nowt to do with news or PR, it's what I observe.
>>
>> I've agreed that's common. But it tells you more about the limited
>> experience and assumptions of many of them. Not a judgement based on
>> actually being able to compare the range of options in an informed manner.
>
> I worked betimes with multinational IT consultants who said they might
> have sold "free" alternatives to Word and Excel to some large businesses
> but with nothing to match Outlook's functionalities senior managers
> would just laugh as they showed them the door. I'd be interested to
> hear of a medium-to-large enterprise* that has dumped Outlook.
>
> *other than Munich's city admin :)
>
>

I wonder why the free Office suite producers have never tried to take on
Outlook? It’s not an impossible coding task. Paid for eMclient on Windows
and Mac seems to be pretty similar.

In article <XnsADEAECF4BAC3537B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22:53 22 Nov 2021, Spike said:
> > On 22/11/2021 15:48, Java Jive wrote:
> >> On 22/11/2021 15:18, Spike wrote:
> >
> >>>> The fact we can't simulate the Earth's climate down to the last
> >>>> atom doesn't mean can't run useful models.
> >
> >>> Rubbish.
> >
> >> Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim stated as though it were
> >> fact?
> >
> > The *EVIDENCE* is in the fact that the models have been unable to
> > predict anything with any accuracy or over any significant timescale,
> > and are highly unreliable due to their very limited capabilities.
> > Haven't you noticed that 'the models' have dropped out of the
> > narrative, in the same fashion as polar bears? They've outlived their
> > usefulness.

> I don't have a dog in this fight but NASA says: "Study Confirms Climate
> Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right".

> https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-
> getting-future-warming-projections-right/

Spike's assertions about 'cimate models' are classic examples of exhibiting
a lack of understanding of how science works, or even the language used by
scientists. Maybe he has a better understanding of Unicorn Ranching, but
I've not seen any sign of that here! :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 11:04 23 Nov 2021, Spike said:

> On 22/11/2021 23:17, Pamela wrote:
>> On 22:53 22 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>
>>> The *EVIDENCE* is in the fact that the models have been unable to
>>> predict anything with any accuracy or over any significant
>>> timescale, and are highly unreliable due to their very limited
>>> capabilities. Haven't you noticed that 'the models' have dropped
>>> out of the narrative, in the same fashion as polar bears? They've
>>> outlived their usefulness.
>
>> I don't have a dog in this fight but NASA says: "Study Confirms
>> Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right".
>
>> https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-
>> models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
>
> MRDA

Try here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRDA

On 09:19 23 Nov 2021, Roderick Stewart said:

> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 18:42:03 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 15:29 22 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>>> On 22/11/2021 14:02, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 22/11/2021 09:19, Spike wrote:
>>>>> On 21/11/2021 22:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/11/2021 21:49, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is interesting to see that I found reference to Wuhan being
>>>>>>> a "secure laboratory" and not one where foreign scientists
>>>>>>> have free access which has been your position.  There is
>>>>>>> currently no way of telling whether the evidence was false
>>>>>>> then or is false now,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bollocks, that's another piece of conspiracy theory paranoia.
>>>>>> Let me remind you again of what Peter Daszac was saying in May
>>>>>> 2020:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BBC Inside Science, 7/5/2020
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, the BBC. That bastion of unbiased reporting. Not.
>>>>
>>>> Whereas Spike who has yet to produce any relevant *EVIDENCE* to
>>>> the lab-leak origin is more reliable than the BBC? No, this is
>>>> just trying to shoot the messenger because you don't like the
>>>> message.
>>>
>>> I don't have to 'provide the evidence', as it forms that part of
>>> your 'balance' that you wish to ignore. Which isn't scientific, of
>>> course.
>>
>>Oh dear. Is that what passes for debate?
>
> It looks like a copy/paste battle, based on the principle that the
> winner is whoever has the last word. "TLDR" as the youngsters say.
>
> Rod.

Of course, I'd never post a content-free message just to have the last
word. :)

On 23/11/2021 11:58, Java Jive wrote:
> On 23/11/2021 11:05, Spike wrote:

>> You don't seem to have grasped that, as the Milankovich cycles go
>> against the current narrative of CO2 leading the warming, they have been
>> deplatformed by the believer community. You're reading from the wrong
>> hymn sheet.

> I'm reading from the science sheet, not a hymn sheet. Milankovich
> cycles explain the periodic episodes of ice ages very well, and,
> contrary to what you claim in your ignorance of science, are entirely
> compatible with AGW.

COBBLERS

This from your favourite skepticalscience. Note the sting in the tail of
this:

=====

There are still a number of unresolved questions that remain in the
astronomical theory of climate change, even during the more familiar
Quaternary timeframe. For instance, while we know changes in the orbit
pace ice ages, the precise way the three Milankovitch variations
conspire to regulate the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is not
well known.

For example, about 800,000 years ago a shift of the dominant periodicity
from a 41,000 yr to 100,000 yr signal in glacial oscillations occurred
(called the Mid-Pleistocene Transition, see e.g., Clark et al., 2006),
and while a lot of ideas exist for why this should be the case, there's
no bulletproof answer to this. Explaining the 100,000 yr recurrence
period of ice ages is difficult because although the 100,000 yr cycle
dominates the ice-volume record, it is small in the insolation spectrum.
Therefore, there's still a lot to be done here.

=====

And this this:

=====

t seems that the Earth listens to the Northern Hemisphere when deciding
to have an ice age. If the North and South are alternatively near and
far from the Sun during summer, why has glaciation been globally
synchronous? What connections are there between Northern insolation and
Antarctic climate at the obliquity and precession timescales? What are
the competitive roles between a further distance from the sun during
summer and a longer summer, following Kepler's law? These questions are
still not resolved (for a flavor of the discussion, see Huybers,
2009...see also Kawamura et al 2007; Huybers and Denton, 2008; Cheng et
al 2009; Denton et al 2010 ). This problem also involves work at the
interface of carbon cycle and ice sheet dynamics, processes that are in
their infancy in terms of modeling.

=====

HAND

--
Spike

On 23/11/2021 11:55, Java Jive wrote:
> On 23/11/2021 11:04, Spike wrote:
>> On 22/11/2021 23:10, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 22/11/2021 22:52, Spike wrote:

>>>> You already have *EVIDENCE*, it's in your claim that you think there's
>>>> a balance.

>>> Stop trying to lie your way out of this and give *EVIDENCE* to support
>>> your claims; put up or shut up.

>> You already have *EVIDENCE*, it's in your claim that you think there's a
>> balance.

> Loser, and a bad one at that, you will be ignored until you produce
> *EVIDENCE* to support your claims.

You already have *EVIDENCE*.

It's in your claim that you think there's a balance to be struck between
the two views. So, when researching the scientific background before
making your claims, how many *original* *scientific* *papers* - not
media reports - of the total available have *you* read that support a
natural cause, and how many such have *you* read that support a lab leak?

--
Spike

In article <s2jppgl7r7og57gv1odlc629djq6bv5j8g@4ax.com>, Martin
<me@address.invalid> wrote:
> >I've agreed that's common. But it tells you more about the limited
> >experience and assumptions of many of them. Not a judgement based on
> >actually being able to compare the range of options in an informed
> >manner.

> ESA NASA and the aerospace industries that go with them standardised on
> Microsoft especially Office. Do you really believe that they did that
> through ignorance?

What I actually know from working with them, is that many who work on ESA
projects use other OSs. For all I know the 'office staff' may all use Word,
etc, because that got decided in the past for them.

Similar when I've visited JET.

BTW if you look at the control rooms for NASA probes, etc, the screens
generally show typical *nix desktops of the kinds favoured by engineers.

So reality is a tad more diverse than you may assume.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <snir6g$9qj$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I wonder why the free Office suite producers have never tried to take on
> Outlook? It's not an impossible coding task. Paid for eMclient on Windows
> and Mac seems to be pretty similar.

Dunno. Maybe the reality is that many developers and users of *nix aren't
really interested in office work.

FWIW I prefer !TechWriter for writing documents (RISC OS).

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 24/11/2021 09:13, Spike wrote:
> On 23/11/2021 11:58, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 23/11/2021 11:05, Spike wrote:
>
>>> You don't seem to have grasped that, as the Milankovich cycles go
>>> against the current narrative of CO2 leading the warming, they have been
>>> deplatformed by the believer community. You're reading from the wrong
>>> hymn sheet.
>
>> I'm reading from the science sheet, not a hymn sheet. Milankovich
>> cycles explain the periodic episodes of ice ages very well, and,
>> contrary to what you claim in your ignorance of science, are entirely
>> compatible with AGW.
>
> COBBLERS
>
> This from your favourite skepticalscience. Note the sting in the tail of
> this:
>
> =====
>
> There are still a number of unresolved questions that remain in the
> astronomical theory of climate change, even during the more familiar
> Quaternary timeframe. For instance, while we know changes in the orbit
> pace ice ages, the precise way the three Milankovitch variations
> conspire to regulate the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is not
> well known.
>
> For example, about 800,000 years ago a shift of the dominant periodicity
> from a 41,000 yr to 100,000 yr signal in glacial oscillations occurred
> (called the Mid-Pleistocene Transition, see e.g., Clark et al., 2006),
> and while a lot of ideas exist for why this should be the case, there's
> no bulletproof answer to this. Explaining the 100,000 yr recurrence
> period of ice ages is difficult because although the 100,000 yr cycle
> dominates the ice-volume record, it is small in the insolation spectrum.
> Therefore, there's still a lot to be done here.
>
> =====

Science is mostly work in progress, and as with any other area of it
some areas are more complete than others, but there's nothing you quote
there that challenges that the coming and going of ice ages is
determined fundamentally by Milankovic cycles.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

For a visual hit, see also the work of Maureen Raymo in the Caribbean:
here's a still from the excellent BBC/OU series Earth Story where she
overlays the results of her dating of fossilised coral terraces,
preserved on land by the gradual rising of Barbados, (red dots) and the
predictions of Milankovitch as to the amount of ice at the poles and the
resulting sea-levels; the fit between high sea-levels in warm periods
and the dates of the preserved fossilised reefs is strikingly good:

www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/EarthStory6-MaureenRaymo-MilankovitchCycles.png

> And this this:
>
> =====
>
> t seems that the Earth listens to the Northern Hemisphere when deciding
> to have an ice age. If the North and South are alternatively near and
> far from the Sun during summer, why has glaciation been globally
> synchronous? What connections are there between Northern insolation and
> Antarctic climate at the obliquity and precession timescales? What are
> the competitive roles between a further distance from the sun during
> summer and a longer summer, following Kepler's law? These questions are
> still not resolved (for a flavor of the discussion, see Huybers,
> 2009...see also Kawamura et al 2007; Huybers and Denton, 2008; Cheng et
> al 2009; Denton et al 2010 ). This problem also involves work at the
> interface of carbon cycle and ice sheet dynamics, processes that are in
> their infancy in terms of modeling.
>
> =====

It seems to have escaped someone's notice that part of the reasoning
around Milankovic cycles is based on there being disproportionate
amounts of land and sea in the two hemispheres - the northern is
mostly land, the southern is most sea, so one would expect a
disproportionate response to insolation. The sea absorbs solar
radiation better, is a huge reservoir of heat, and can move, so lack of
insolation when the southern hemisphere is farthest from the sun is less
consequential to earth as a whole than for the northern.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2021-11-23, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 23/11/2021 12:17, Incubus wrote:
>> On 2021-11-22, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so
>>>>> we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not
>>>>> what flies in the face of it.
>>>>
>>>> Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
>>>
>>> What is it about "we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE
>>> OF EVIDENCE*" that you have such difficulty in understanding?
>>
>> What is it about "THE EVIDENCE IS INCOMPLETE AND FLAWED BECAUSE ONE
>> AVENUE OF INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY RULED OUT" that you have
>> such difficulty in understanding?
>
> I don't have difficulty in understanding, but taking that into account,
> the balance of scientific opinion is as it is, firmly against a lab leak
> origin.

You obviously aren't taking that into account.

>>>> particularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.
>>>
>>> FFS ignored? The scientific evidence is what is being most ignored here!
>>
>> Scientific evidence is incomplete when an avenue of investigation has
>> been ignored.
>
> It's unscientific to ignore evidence that you do have, and that is what
> you and others are doing in this thread.

I'm not ignoring the evidence; I'm saying no conclusions can be draw
from it other than it is possible that the origin is zoonotic.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 13:13:48 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2021-11-23, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 23/11/2021 12:17, Incubus wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-22, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so
>>>>>> we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not
>>>>>> what flies in the face of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
>>>>
>>>> What is it about "we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE
>>>> OF EVIDENCE*" that you have such difficulty in understanding?
>>>
>>> What is it about "THE EVIDENCE IS INCOMPLETE AND FLAWED BECAUSE ONE
>>> AVENUE OF INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY RULED OUT" that you have
>>> such difficulty in understanding?
>>
>> I don't have difficulty in understanding, but taking that into account,
>> the balance of scientific opinion is as it is, firmly against a lab leak
>> origin.
>
>You obviously aren't taking that into account.
>
>>>>> particularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.
>>>>
>>>> FFS ignored? The scientific evidence is what is being most ignored here!
>>>
>>> Scientific evidence is incomplete when an avenue of investigation has
>>> been ignored.
>>
>> It's unscientific to ignore evidence that you do have, and that is what
>> you and others are doing in this thread.
>
>I'm not ignoring the evidence; I'm saying no conclusions can be draw
>from it other than it is possible that the origin is zoonotic.

he has an either/or 'mindset'...nothing can
pass that barrier at present
still, spammy loves him...but s/he has the 'same' difficulty

On 24/11/2021 13:13, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-11-23, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 23/11/2021 12:17, Incubus wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-22, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so
>>>>>> we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not
>>>>>> what flies in the face of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
>>>>
>>>> What is it about "we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE
>>>> OF EVIDENCE*" that you have such difficulty in understanding?
>>>
>>> What is it about "THE EVIDENCE IS INCOMPLETE AND FLAWED BECAUSE ONE
>>> AVENUE OF INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY RULED OUT" that you have
>>> such difficulty in understanding?
>>
>> I don't have difficulty in understanding, but taking that into account,
>> the balance of scientific opinion is as it is, firmly against a lab leak
>> origin.
>
> You obviously aren't taking that into account.

You obviously aren't taking the balance of scientific opinion into account.

>>>>> particularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.
>>>>
>>>> FFS ignored? The scientific evidence is what is being most ignored here!
>>>
>>> Scientific evidence is incomplete when an avenue of investigation has
>>> been ignored.
>>
>> It's unscientific to ignore evidence that you do have, and that is what
>> you and others are doing in this thread.
>
> I'm not ignoring the evidence; I'm saying no conclusions can be draw
> from it other than it is possible that the origin is zoonotic.

You are ignoring evidence, the evidence says that it is *PROBABLE* that
the origin is zoonotic.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 24/11/2021 13:46, abelard wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 13:13:48 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-11-23, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's unscientific to ignore evidence that you do have, and that is what
>>> you and others are doing in this thread.
>>
>> I'm not ignoring the evidence; I'm saying no conclusions can be draw
>>from it other than it is possible that the origin is zoonotic.
>
> he has an either/or 'mindset'...nothing can
> pass that barrier at present
> still, spammy loves him...but s/he has the 'same' difficulty

As you have contributed nothing but childish insults and zilch evidence
to this thread ...

PLONK!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2021-11-24, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 24/11/2021 13:13, Incubus wrote:
>> On 2021-11-23, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 23/11/2021 12:17, Incubus wrote:
>>>> On 2021-11-22, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so
>>>>>>> we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not
>>>>>>> what flies in the face of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it about "we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE
>>>>> OF EVIDENCE*" that you have such difficulty in understanding?
>>>>
>>>> What is it about "THE EVIDENCE IS INCOMPLETE AND FLAWED BECAUSE ONE
>>>> AVENUE OF INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY RULED OUT" that you have
>>>> such difficulty in understanding?
>>>
>>> I don't have difficulty in understanding, but taking that into account,
>>> the balance of scientific opinion is as it is, firmly against a lab leak
>>> origin.
>>
>> You obviously aren't taking that into account.
>
> You obviously aren't taking the balance of scientific opinion into account.

It's not balanced. A particular avenue of investigation was
deliberately not explored.

>>>>>> particularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>> FFS ignored? The scientific evidence is what is being most ignored here!
>>>>
>>>> Scientific evidence is incomplete when an avenue of investigation has
>>>> been ignored.
>>>
>>> It's unscientific to ignore evidence that you do have, and that is what
>>> you and others are doing in this thread.
>>
>> I'm not ignoring the evidence; I'm saying no conclusions can be draw
>> from it other than it is possible that the origin is zoonotic.
>
> You are ignoring evidence, the evidence says that it is *PROBABLE* that
> the origin is zoonotic.

The evidence is incomplete and therefore does not support such a
conclusion.

On 24/11/2021 14:11, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-11-24, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 24/11/2021 13:13, Incubus wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-23, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 23/11/2021 12:17, Incubus wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-11-22, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so
>>>>>>>> we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not
>>>>>>>> what flies in the face of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is it about "we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE
>>>>>> OF EVIDENCE*" that you have such difficulty in understanding?
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it about "THE EVIDENCE IS INCOMPLETE AND FLAWED BECAUSE ONE
>>>>> AVENUE OF INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY RULED OUT" that you have
>>>>> such difficulty in understanding?
>>>>
>>>> I don't have difficulty in understanding, but taking that into account,
>>>> the balance of scientific opinion is as it is, firmly against a lab leak
>>>> origin.
>>>
>>> You obviously aren't taking that into account.
>>
>> You obviously aren't taking the balance of scientific opinion into account.
>
> It's not balanced. A particular avenue of investigation was
> deliberately not explored.

The majority of scientific opinion is against you, get used to it.

>> You are ignoring evidence, the evidence says that it is *PROBABLE* that
>> the origin is zoonotic.
>
> The evidence is incomplete and therefore does not support such a
> conclusion.

FALSE! No evidence about the world is ever entirely complete, so based
on that we should ignore all science and technical innovation and return
to being hunter gatherers using stone tools. Oh no, stone tools are
technology based on evidence, which is incomplete, so we can't use those
either, so we must just be hunter-gatherers using only what our bodies
alone can manage. Oh no, our minds are a tool that learns from
evidence, yet all evidence is incomplete, so we're not allowed to use
our minds either, and applying that to evolutionary 'learning' for every
living thing on the planet means that evolution can not possibly occur.
But evolution does occur, and we do learn from experience, and we do
make useful tools, and we are always having to make decisions on
incomplete knowledge. Get used to it.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <j06e10F14aaU1@mid.individual.net>,
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> here are still a number of unresolved questions that remain...

As previous, the above is always accepted in science, but doesn't mean we
have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Newton's 'Laws' didn't
explain with absolute precision every detail of mechanics, but they remain
highly accurate and useful in general. Walking out into the road in front
of a speeding car because the Laws are "just a theory" may be unwise... :-)

Another factor I've seen crop up in Hi-Fi as a particular breeding ground
is what I've come to call "MOOM".

Mountains Out Of Molehills.

The main area being people who pay vast sums for a cable which has had some
'fairy dust' sprinkled on it to 'improve' some obscure minor aspects
(allegedly) of its ability to convey signals. Often based on a bit of
'science' whose impact is bigged up by hype and the anxiety many Hi-Fi
ethusiasts have that somehow their Hi-Fi system isn't as good as someone
else's.

Preys on a lack of real understanding of science in order to use selective
claims about 'science' to be deployed to flog twaddle to the marks.

MOOM is in essence a form of cherry picking. Something that Bob and Spike
have been using. Sadly, people can easily believe these things as a result
of not really understanding science.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <599056b7f5noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <j06e10F14aaU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> > here are still a number of unresolved questions that remain...

> As previous, the above is always accepted in science, but doesn't mean we
> have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Newton's 'Laws' didn't
> explain with absolute precision every detail of mechanics, but they remain
> highly accurate and useful in general. Walking out into the road in front
> of a speeding car because the Laws are "just a theory" may be unwise... :-)

> Another factor I've seen crop up in Hi-Fi as a particular breeding ground
> is what I've come to call "MOOM".

> Mountains Out Of Molehills.

> The main area being people who pay vast sums for a cable which has had
> some 'fairy dust' sprinkled on it to 'improve' some obscure minor aspects
> (allegedly) of its ability to convey signals. Often based on a bit of
> 'science' whose impact is bigged up by hype and the anxiety many Hi-Fi
> ethusiasts have that somehow their Hi-Fi system isn't as good as someone
> else's.

I rememeber reading an article in what I believed to be a serious magazine
saying that gold plated mains plugs improved stereo separation.

> Preys on a lack of real understanding of science in order to use selective
> claims about 'science' to be deployed to flog twaddle to the marks.

> MOOM is in essence a form of cherry picking. Something that Bob and Spike
> have been using. Sadly, people can easily believe these things as a result
> of not really understanding science.

> Jim

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

> In article <599056b7f5noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <j06e10F14aaU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> > Another factor I've seen crop up in Hi-Fi as a particular
> > breeding ground is what I've come to call "MOOM".

> > Mountains Out Of Molehills.

> > The main area being people who pay vast sums for a cable which
> > has had some 'fairy dust' sprinkled on it to 'improve' some
> > obscure minor aspects (allegedly) of its ability to convey
> > signals. Often based on a bit of 'science' whose impact is bigged
> > up by hype and the anxiety many Hi-Fi ethusiasts have that
> > somehow their Hi-Fi system isn't as good as someone else's.

> > Preys on a lack of real understanding of science in order to use
> > selective claims about 'science' to be deployed to flog twaddle
> > to the marks.

I think we need to clear up some nonsense here being used to be nasty
and personal as usual as I've come to expect from certain quarters
that should know better.

If you're talking about loudspeaker cables then their effect or lack
of, is dependent on other factors, things like the electrical load
the speaker presents to the amplifier and the type of music being
listened to and under what conditions.

On my loudspeakers, in my room listening to my test tracks I quite
clearly hear the effect some different speaker cables have on the
sound reproduced.

I would not for one moment suggest that these differences could be
heard on a totally different speaker or music. Nor am I claiming
there is anything special in this regard about my speakers. Although
I have a pretty good collection of and enjoy classical music, for
*me* it is near useless for evaluating system performance.

As my kind friend Jim uses electrostatic speakers that present an
entirely different load to the amplifier and cables, I don't have an
issue with his not hearing any differences on his classical music.

I have not come to this view from any science position at all, it
didn't come into it. I came to it simply because I borrowed cables
myself and tried them, nothing more.

I recall back in the late 70s I was using the grey twin flex that
came with my KEF speakers at the time and a friend brought round some
QED 79 strand speaker cables. No science, no vast cost though they
were more money than the twin flex. I was shocked by the difference
they made, really shocked. Since then I try things myself, some
things make no difference for me, some do, some positive and some
negative.

The science involved is utterly irrelevant it only matters if it
works or not.

One thing I notice with all doubters on speaker cables, they've not
tried it much if at all because, they know "the science" and it can't
happen.

Right fine, I'll do a blind test with mates and my wife and test
reality thanks, it is after - all that matters. I'll let others
fantasise about science theory.

But I'm not advocating Russ Andrews type rip-offs at all, I'm just
advocating listening yourself.

> > MOOM is in essence a form of cherry picking. Something that Bob
> > and Spike have been using. Sadly, people can easily believe these
> > things as a result of not really understanding science.

I see others talking of the nasty cancel culture left on social
media, seems it's true, disagree with them and they attack personal
and dirty. So glad I'm not of the left.

Bob.

On 24/11/2021 19:26, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> I see others talking of the nasty cancel culture left on social
> media, seems it's true, disagree with them and they attack personal
> and dirty. So glad I'm not of the left.

HYPOSHITE! Few here 'cancel', in other words killfiles, more people
than you, and - strangely not - some of them are people who debunk
all the hypocritical lies and shit you post here.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 24/11/2021 13:48, Java Jive wrote:
> On 24/11/2021 13:13, Incubus wrote:

>> I'm not ignoring the evidence; I'm saying no conclusions can be draw
>> from it other than it is possible that the origin is zoonotic.

> You are ignoring evidence, the evidence says that it is *PROBABLE* that
> the origin is zoonotic.

Who carried out, and on what basis did they do so. the statistical exercise?

Did they weigh the papers for and against? Take a vote?

And what of the evidence that says a lab leak was probable?

You seem to be very muddled.

--
Spike

On 24/11/2021 14:23, Java Jive wrote:

> No evidence about the world is ever entirely complete, so based
> on that we should ignore all science and technical innovation and return
> to being hunter gatherers using stone tools. Oh no, stone tools are
> technology based on evidence, which is incomplete, so we can't use those
> either, so we must just be hunter-gatherers using only what our bodies
> alone can manage. Oh no, our minds are a tool that learns from
> evidence, yet all evidence is incomplete, so we're not allowed to use
> our minds either, and applying that to evolutionary 'learning' for every
> living thing on the planet means that evolution can not possibly occur.
> But evolution does occur, and we do learn from experience, and we do
> make useful tools, and we are always having to make decisions on
> incomplete knowledge. Get used to it.

So tell us the reason *why* you feel the need to make a decision in the
case of the Wuhan virus. Are you considering sending in Bomber Command
to obliterate the lab?

--
Spike

On 24/11/2021 13:04, Java Jive wrote:
> On 24/11/2021 09:13, Spike wrote:
>> On 23/11/2021 11:58, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 23/11/2021 11:05, Spike wrote:

>>>> You don't seem to have grasped that, as the Milankovich cycles go
>>>> against the current narrative of CO2 leading the warming, they have been
>>>> deplatformed by the believer community. You're reading from the wrong
>>>> hymn sheet.

>>> I'm reading from the science sheet, not a hymn sheet. Milankovich
>>> cycles explain the periodic episodes of ice ages very well, and,
>>> contrary to what you claim in your ignorance of science, are entirely
>>> compatible with AGW.

>> COBBLERS

>> This from your favourite skepticalscience. Note the sting in the tail of
>> this:

>> =====

>> There are still a number of unresolved questions that remain in the
>> astronomical theory of climate change, even during the more familiar
>> Quaternary timeframe. For instance, while we know changes in the orbit
>> pace ice ages, the precise way the three Milankovitch variations
>> conspire to regulate the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is not
>> well known.

>> For example, about 800,000 years ago a shift of the dominant periodicity
>> from a 41,000 yr to 100,000 yr signal in glacial oscillations occurred
>> (called the Mid-Pleistocene Transition, see e.g., Clark et al., 2006),
>> and while a lot of ideas exist for why this should be the case, there's
>> no bulletproof answer to this. Explaining the 100,000 yr recurrence
>> period of ice ages is difficult because although the 100,000 yr cycle
>> dominates the ice-volume record, it is small in the insolation spectrum.
>> Therefore, there's still a lot to be done here.

>> =====

> Science is mostly work in progress, and as with any other area of it
> some areas are more complete than others, but there's nothing you quote
> there that challenges that the coming and going of ice ages is
> determined fundamentally by Milankovic cycles.

> https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

> For a visual hit, see also the work of Maureen Raymo in the Caribbean:
> here's a still from the excellent BBC/OU series Earth Story where she
> overlays the results of her dating of fossilised coral terraces,
> preserved on land by the gradual rising of Barbados, (red dots) and the
> predictions of Milankovitch as to the amount of ice at the poles and the
> resulting sea-levels; the fit between high sea-levels in warm periods
> and the dates of the preserved fossilised reefs is strikingly good:

> www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/EarthStory6-MaureenRaymo-MilankovitchCycles.png

>> And this this:

>> =====

>> t seems that the Earth listens to the Northern Hemisphere when deciding
>> to have an ice age. If the North and South are alternatively near and
>> far from the Sun during summer, why has glaciation been globally
>> synchronous? What connections are there between Northern insolation and
>> Antarctic climate at the obliquity and precession timescales? What are
>> the competitive roles between a further distance from the sun during
>> summer and a longer summer, following Kepler's law? These questions are
>> still not resolved (for a flavor of the discussion, see Huybers,
>> 2009...see also Kawamura et al 2007; Huybers and Denton, 2008; Cheng et
>> al 2009; Denton et al 2010 ). This problem also involves work at the
>> interface of carbon cycle and ice sheet dynamics, processes that are in
>> their infancy in terms of modeling.

>> =====

> It seems to have escaped someone's notice that part of the reasoning
> around Milankovic cycles is based on there being disproportionate
> amounts of land and sea in the two hemispheres - the northern is
> mostly land, the southern is most sea, so one would expect a
> disproportionate response to insolation. The sea absorbs solar
> radiation better, is a huge reservoir of heat, and can move, so lack of
> insolation when the southern hemisphere is farthest from the sun is less
> consequential to earth as a whole than for the northern.

Changes in the orbit pace ice ages, but the precise way the three
Milankovitch variations conspire to regulate the timing of
glacial-interglacial cycles *is* *not* *well* *known*.

--
Spike

In article <slrnspsi0j.vna.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2021-11-24, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> > On 24/11/2021 13:13, Incubus wrote:
> >> On 2021-11-23, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> >
> > You are ignoring evidence, the evidence says that it is *PROBABLE*
> > that the origin is zoonotic.

> The evidence is incomplete and therefore does not support such a
> conclusion.

Standard error again on the part of in-a-bust.. it is quite usual in
science for 'evidence' to be 'incomplete' in the sense that it remains open
for *later* evidence to raise a reason to reconsider a conclusion about
what is 'probably correct'.

In effect, scientific conclusions are always 'tentative' in this sense. And
people then use that 'pro tem' conclusion until such time as new evidence
shows up that gives reasonable cause for reconsideration - which may not
mean the earlier conclusion is discarded, but continues to be taken as the
best view.

Again, the obvious example is Newton's Laws which looked pretty good, and
remain use for the scope which lead to them. But for other *cases and
situations outwith that scope* has been displaced by Relativity.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 19:26:00 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

>I recall back in the late 70s I was using the grey twin flex that
>came with my KEF speakers at the time and a friend brought round some
>QED 79 strand speaker cables. No science, no vast cost though they
>were more money than the twin flex. I was shocked by the difference
>they made, really shocked. Since then I try things myself, some
>things make no difference for me, some do, some positive and some
>negative.

Did you change back to the grey twin flex *after* this experiment and
observe the sound quality returning to its previous level?

I would guess that in a lot of instances when trying out some new
supercalifragilistic speaker cables, the old cables will have been in
situ for some time, and therefore the electrical contacts may not be
as good as they should, and may include a bit of diode action from
surface oxide. If this caused a slow degradation over time it might
not be noticed, and a sudden improvement could result from the mere
action of disturbing the connections for any reason.

Did you measure the resistance of the grey twin flex that came with
the speakers and compare it with the resistance of the 79 strand?

If the grey twin flex did reduce the quality after replacing it, did
you then try some ordinary non-fancy, but thick, speaker cable from
somewhere ordinary and non-fancy like B&Q? How did that sound?

Rod.