JAXAshby wrote:
He got a
b.s. in physics, then got a master's in physics,

okay.

then a doctorate in
biology,

how did he do that, hoary without getting enough credits in bio to also get a
bs and ms in bio as well?

Dunno. I wasn't his roomie or his faculty advisor, nor did we attend the
same undergrad or grad schools. He did it, though.


and then, of all things, a law degree.

such people usually become patent attorneys.

That is his field, sort of...he handles patents and other intellectual
property matters for genetic research.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

JAXAshby wrote:
I took the SATs in, oh,
1961, I'd say

haory, you can't remember when you were a junior in high school?

Sure. I even remember who I took to my junior prom.





--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

JAXAshby wrote:
625 WHEN?

Prior to 1985 or so, a 625 was pretty goddamn good.

bullsquat. 625 on math was always poor at best. such students were advised to
go into poly sci or art history.


What a giggle. Way back when I took the SATs, 625 in math was in the
95th percentile, or so. Give or take a point.

What are your degrees in, Jaxass, and what is it you did for a living
before you were sent away on morals charges?


--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

In article ,
JAXAshby wrote:


625 WHEN?

Prior to 1985 or so, a 625 was pretty goddamn good.

bullsquat. 625 on math was always poor at best. such students were advised to
go into poly sci or art history.

You are completely full of ****.

Before roughly 1985 when the test was re-normed a 600 score on either part
of the test was in the top 3 percent of all 18 year olds in verbal, and the
top 5-6% in math. That ain't "poor" by any standard.

A 650 was in the top 1% verbal, and the top 2% in math. If you scored at or
above 650 you probably would qualify for Mensa.

Among college-bound, a 650 in was in the top 4% in verbal, and top 8% in
math ability.

600 Verbals correlated with a roughly 130 IQ, as did a 650 in Math.

This all in the pre-renormed SAT world.

Post 1985ish when the test was re-normed those numbers became MUCH less
impressive.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

Subject: Anchors are SUPPOSED to drag?
From: (JAXAshby)

From what I was told, after he introduced himself the first time they met he
said, "I bet you think I'm an asshole."

how does it feel to be found a fool, billie? Never in my life have I used
any
words such as that.

Really? That's funny cause you used a couple of those word in this very post.

among other things, I don't care what you think, so
would
never give a microsecond's thought to what you think.


I know this is very, very hard for you to do in your mental state, but try to
read for content. I never said you were speaking to me.

Capt. Bill

karl, knock it off. there ain't not a single thing "logrythmically" (sic)
about a catenary. look the frickin word up before you use it.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD frickin understand what it means.

dum cluck, you are karl. as in
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddduuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

now, knock it off before you kill someone and go to jail.

this has been explained to *you* in simple enough terms to make *you* a
"reasonable man" under the terms of the law of the land. injure someone and
*****I***** will make absolutely certain you are charged with a felony. As you
deserve to be. just like driving a car drunk.



(Karl dum squat Denninger)
Date: 9/27/2004 10:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: et


In article ,
JAXAshby wrote:


karl, knock it off. next time READ the frickin thread before you respond.
the
thread was about shock loads and some frickin idgit's claim that anchor are
SUPPOSED to drag because otherwise the shock loads (on an all chain rode)
would
break the deck chocks off.

Jaxass, YOU knock it off.

There's nothing wrong with all-chain rode.

You need to pay attention to this thing called caternary. It provides the
snubbing on an all-chain rode, and if the scope is sufficiently long the
load comes on slowly, just as it does on a rode made out of line.

If you actually paid attention to the physics of the matter you would
realize that as the "bow" comes out of the chain the load increases -
logrythmically.

Exactly as it does when you stretch nylon line.

The difference is that chain is HEAVY and the effort required to "straighten
the bow" in it is very significant. This effort is applied gradually - the
load does not appear in a "snap".

In either case if you exceed the snubbing capability you take the full
load against the entire anchor system, and I guarantee you that it is
quite possible to tear out deck hardware with all-nylon rodes.

The 3/4" line that I use for "severe service" (both dock lines and anchoring)

has a breaking test of somewhere around 11,000 lbs. That is approximately
1/4 of the displacement of my vessel; I have no reasonable belief that I
could suspend my vessel by the four corners on the bow and stern cleats
by that line without some piece of the deck or hardware failing.

Note as well that in tests of combination chain/rope rodes it is common to
find post-separation that when the nylon rode parts the chain has been
permanently deformed and welds have begun to come apart, indicating that
the chain was very near the failure point as well.

Most storm anchoring failures that are actually your own fault are either
due to insufficient scope or chafe. But the huge majority of failures in a
storm are caused by something - either another boat or some LARGE piece
of debris - fouling your mooring and causing the pull on your anchor to
no longer be along the seabed floor. Once that happens you're screwed,
no matter what kind of anchor and rode you have.

I have a piling next to my air conditioning condensor at the house that took
a direct hit from a neighbor's dock section during Ivan. It is bent over at
a 45 degree angle. It did its job of protecting my condensor, but if that
section had come loose and hit your anchor rode while your boat was anchored
out it would have either cut if (if nylon) or pulled you loose (irrespective
of WHAT it is) and you'd be screwed.

During Ivan I was at a dock with a passel of lines spider-webbing my boat in
place. Post-storm when I returned to the (safely tied up and undamaged)
vessel my chafe gear on the lines that took the predominant load from the
east winds was severely damaged. For chafe gear I use cut-up fire hose -
arguably the toughest stuff around for that purpose.

Without it the lines on that side of the boat would have almost certainly
failed; the damage to the chafing gear was quite an impressive testament
to the loads taken during the storm.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights
Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A
LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

hoary explains his absolute understanding of what he wrote thusly:

Dunno. I wasn't ...

"sorta" eh? boy, hoary, you are are one informed sumbitch about what you post
about.

such people usually become patent attorneys.

That is his field, sort of

let us guess. three of the five Svenssen sisters?

haory, you can't remember when you were a junior in high school?

Sure. I even remember who I took to my junior prom.

haory, you can't remember when you were a junior in high school?

Sure. I even remember ...

okay. was it "sorta" 1961 or "sorta" a year or two or three or five earlier or
later?