> In article <MPG.255ae36469e18c6d989...@news.kolumbus.fi>, > Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <10xxlnl2vnzm3....@falcon.sloth.hell.pl>, Szymon =?utf-8?Q? > > Sok=C3=B3=C5=82?= (szy...@bastard.operator.from.hell.pl) says... > > > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:23:12 -0800, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> > > > Bah! The 45th is only halfway to the Pole. I am north of the > > > > 50th which is not a lot more north.
> > > > Shall we take a census of polar bears (and, to be fair, > > > > penguins)?
> > > Exactly 50°N here (and exactly 20°E). And if you ask me, -5°C at this > > > season > > > of the year isn't exactly "polar", but uncomfortably close.
> > Bah. Southeners. Here above the sixtieth we don't use fireworks to > > scare away spirits. We use them to scare away polar bears.
> Finland?
That's right, baby.
A geography teacher I once had, by the way, had a theory that Finland was the most spoken language north of 60th degree of latitude. I'm not entirely convinced, but it seems like it might be true.
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:01:59 -0700, Greg Goss wrote: > Before using my current newsreader (since early in 1995 IIRC), I used > RTIN, which seemed intuitive. But that was a very long time ago, and > I can't remember what it looked like.
I do - I still occasionally use it (if I need to access Usenet from Linux machine). It doesn't have split screen, instead it has three main modes - a list of groups, a list of articles in a group, or the current article. You enter a group (or select an article) with cursor keys and Enter, and "q" key goes back. -- Szymon Sokół (SS316-RIPE) -- Network Manager B Computer Center, AGH - University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland O http://home.agh.edu.pl/szymon/ PGP key id: RSA: 0x2ABE016B, DSS: 0xF9289982 F Free speech includes the right not to listen, if not interested -- Heinlein H
On Nov 4, 3:18 pm, Szymon Sokół <szy...@bastard.operator.from.hell.pl> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:01:59 -0700, Greg Goss wrote: > > Before using my current newsreader (since early in 1995 IIRC), I used > > RTIN, which seemed intuitive. But that was a very long time ago, and > > I can't remember what it looked like.
> I do - I still occasionally use it (if I need to access Usenet from Linux > machine). It doesn't have split screen, instead it has three main modes - a > list of groups, a list of articles in a group, or the current article. You > enter a group (or select an article) with cursor keys and Enter, and "q" key > goes back.
Very similar to Mar Tin, which allows you a great deal of freedom in what you write but you never finish a post.
In article <mike-C2E56B.12320204112...@news.eternal-september.org>, Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote:
> In article <hcs0db$1j...@news.eternal-september.org>, > mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote: > > And what is wrong with living in a stand of trees? (They only seem to > > be south of the road anyway.)
> It seems like it would be difficult to access Usenet from that location. > Even with fancy wireless solutions, you still have the problem of > powering it all and keeping it dry.
If you tried to find my location via Google, you'd only see the trees. VERY tall trees. I once investigated the possibility of satellite TV and was told the thing would have to sit almost in the road to bring anything in. Hence cable.
-- Erilar, biblioholic
bib-li-o-hol-ism [<Gr biblion] n. [BIBLIO + HOLISM] books, of books: habitual longing to purchase, read, store, admire, and consume books in excess.
erilar wrote: > In article <mike-C2E56B.12320204112...@news.eternal-september.org>, > Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>> In article <hcs0db$1j...@news.eternal-september.org>, >> mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>>> And what is wrong with living in a stand of trees? (They only seem to >>> be south of the road anyway.) >> It seems like it would be difficult to access Usenet from that location. >> Even with fancy wireless solutions, you still have the problem of >> powering it all and keeping it dry.
> If you tried to find my location via Google, you'd only see the trees. > VERY tall trees. I once investigated the possibility of satellite TV > and was told the thing would have to sit almost in the road to bring > anything in. Hence cable.
> >>> And what is wrong with living in a stand of trees? (They only seem to > >>> be south of the road anyway.) > >> It seems like it would be difficult to access Usenet from that location. > >> Even with fancy wireless solutions, you still have the problem of > >> powering it all and keeping it dry.
> > If you tried to find my location via Google, you'd only see the trees. > > VERY tall trees. I once investigated the possibility of satellite TV > > and was told the thing would have to sit almost in the road to bring > > anything in. Hence cable.
> Not "hence lots of firewood"?
Pine is OK for starting fires, but not for keeping one going. I have to buy hardwood for that.
-- Erilar, biblioholic
bib-li-o-hol-ism [<Gr biblion] n. [BIBLIO + HOLISM] books, of books: habitual longing to purchase, read, store, admire, and consume books in excess.
On Oct 25, 2:33 am, Ryan McCoskrie <ryan.mccosk...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Can I have some indication of how old everyone else here is? > I'm beginning to suspect that I'm the only person left on > Usenet who's under twenty.
> Or forty come to think of it...
46 Sent my first email back in 1981. Was 17, in what would become computer camp at CWRU. She was cute and I wanted to know what xyzzy was :)
In article <MPG.2555096ec2c1f7c7989...@news.octanews.com>,
netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote: > In article <7kuddsF3bnpd...@mid.individual.net>, defaultuse...@yahoo.com > says... > > Even after I got them, I had a tendency to take them off and leave them > > places. After losing a pair, my dad told me he'd better not see without > > them again.
> When I take mine off, I'll need another pair to find the first pair.
> rgds, > netcat
I've actually stashed a second pair of glasses in a *known* place, in case I misplace the main pair. The emergency glasses don't have to have any of the extra cost options.
-- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
> >>>> LSD is, in fact, not very toxic at all; Huxley had to consume a > truly > >>>> staggering amount of the stuff, and it's not clear even then that > >>>> that's what actually killed him.
> >>>However, the only elephant ever given LSD died. The experimenters > >>>figured out what had gone wrong, but for some reason the experiment > has > >>>not been repeated.
> >>Elephants never liked Timothy Leary, for some reason.
> > What went wrong was that they calculated the dose as for a human, > > adjusted for body weight. The St Louis Zoo, owners of the elephant in > > question, grasped immediately how stupid this was; they were *very* > > pissed off. The adjustment should be for the weight of the brain, or > > possibly the total tissue of the nervous system.
> Actually, they scaled up from the dosage required to put a kitten into a > rage.
> Apparently this seemed sensible to them at the time...
> (Source: _Scaling: Why is animal size so important?_ by Knut Schmidt- > Nielsen. Will check out the original paper when I get back to work, just > to make sure.)
> (Also, it's nice to know that if you have a kitten that is vexing you > with its redoubtable calmness and self-possession, you can look in the > literature and find out how much LSD you need to fix this infelicity.)
> It's also possible that it wasn't the acid that killed the elephant, but > the drugs they gave him whilst attempting to revive him, as two other > elephants later given a similiar dose just behaved strangely (well, they > were tripping...) for several hours, and were afterwards fine.
> I also very much doubt that Huxley actually died from LSD poisoning, as > it truly is remarkably non-toxic...
The difference between the effective dose and the lethal does is large you mean. I was told that LSD was safe from accidental contamination because any toxic byproduct of the synthesis was going to be in such minute quantity as to be safe. IOW on a microgram for microgram basis LSD is very toxic.
-- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
>> >>>> LSD is, in fact, not very toxic at all; Huxley had to consume a >> truly >> >>>> staggering amount of the stuff, and it's not clear even then that >> >>>> that's what actually killed him.
>> >>>However, the only elephant ever given LSD died. The experimenters >> >>>figured out what had gone wrong, but for some reason the experiment >> has >> >>>not been repeated.
>> >>Elephants never liked Timothy Leary, for some reason.
>> > What went wrong was that they calculated the dose as for a human, >> > adjusted for body weight. The St Louis Zoo, owners of the elephant in >> > question, grasped immediately how stupid this was; they were *very* >> > pissed off. The adjustment should be for the weight of the brain, or >> > possibly the total tissue of the nervous system.
>> Actually, they scaled up from the dosage required to put a kitten into a >> rage.
>> Apparently this seemed sensible to them at the time...
>> (Source: _Scaling: Why is animal size so important?_ by Knut Schmidt- >> Nielsen. Will check out the original paper when I get back to work, just >> to make sure.)
>> (Also, it's nice to know that if you have a kitten that is vexing you >> with its redoubtable calmness and self-possession, you can look in the >> literature and find out how much LSD you need to fix this infelicity.)
>> It's also possible that it wasn't the acid that killed the elephant, but >> the drugs they gave him whilst attempting to revive him, as two other >> elephants later given a similiar dose just behaved strangely (well, they >> were tripping...) for several hours, and were afterwards fine.
>> I also very much doubt that Huxley actually died from LSD poisoning, as >> it truly is remarkably non-toxic...
>The difference between the effective dose and the lethal does is large >you mean. I was told that LSD was safe from accidental contamination >because any toxic byproduct of the synthesis was going to be in such >minute quantity as to be safe. IOW on a microgram for microgram basis >LSD is very toxic.
Compared with what?
-- Don Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
>> >>>> LSD is, in fact, not very toxic at all; Huxley had to consume a >> truly >> >>>> staggering amount of the stuff, and it's not clear even then that >> >>>> that's what actually killed him.
>> I also very much doubt that Huxley actually died from LSD poisoning, as >> it truly is remarkably non-toxic...
>The difference between the effective dose and the lethal does is large >you mean. I was told that LSD was safe from accidental contamination >because any toxic byproduct of the synthesis was going to be in such >minute quantity as to be safe. IOW on a microgram for microgram basis >LSD is very toxic.
No, that's not what it means at all; it means nobody takes much of it. Which is true. The effective dose is tiny. Nobody ever takes a dose that isn't measured in micrograms. The guy who invented it took a few milligrams, which he assumed was so little it would be harmless, and was tripping, completely out of his head, for several days.
The lethal dose, on the other hand, isn't actually known, but last I heard was estimated to be a couple of liters. Which nobody would _ever_ take. It's easier to kill yourself drinking water (and screwing up your electrolyte balance) than by overdosing on LSD.
veritas <veritas....@gmail.com> wrote: >Ryan McCoskrie <ryan.mccosk...@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Can I have some indication of how old everyone else here is? >> I'm beginning to suspect that I'm the only person left on >> Usenet who's under twenty.
>> Or forty come to think of it...
>46 >Sent my first email back in 1981. >Was 17, in what would become computer camp at CWRU. >She was cute and I wanted to know what xyzzy was :)
I've been very busy and haven't been keeping up much on this group. So I don't recall if I answered this previously.
Age: 52. Reading SF since discovering Heinlein juvies at age 9 or 10. Hung out with fandom in 77-81, 86, 88-92. Member of Compuserve's SF group in 83 or 84. On usenet since 89. -- apart from one noisy guy up in Canada, no-one wants a three-cylinder tissue box on bicycle tires.
> >> >>>> LSD is, in fact, not very toxic at all; Huxley had to consume a > >> truly > >> >>>> staggering amount of the stuff, and it's not clear even then that > >> >>>> that's what actually killed him.
> >> >>>However, the only elephant ever given LSD died. The experimenters > >> >>>figured out what had gone wrong, but for some reason the experiment > >> has > >> >>>not been repeated.
> >> >>Elephants never liked Timothy Leary, for some reason.
> >> > What went wrong was that they calculated the dose as for a human, > >> > adjusted for body weight. The St Louis Zoo, owners of the elephant in > >> > question, grasped immediately how stupid this was; they were *very* > >> > pissed off. The adjustment should be for the weight of the brain, or > >> > possibly the total tissue of the nervous system.
> >> Actually, they scaled up from the dosage required to put a kitten into a > >> rage.
> >> Apparently this seemed sensible to them at the time...
> >> (Source: _Scaling: Why is animal size so important?_ by Knut Schmidt- > >> Nielsen. Will check out the original paper when I get back to work, just > >> to make sure.)
> >> (Also, it's nice to know that if you have a kitten that is vexing you > >> with its redoubtable calmness and self-possession, you can look in the > >> literature and find out how much LSD you need to fix this infelicity.)
> >> It's also possible that it wasn't the acid that killed the elephant, but > >> the drugs they gave him whilst attempting to revive him, as two other > >> elephants later given a similiar dose just behaved strangely (well, they > >> were tripping...) for several hours, and were afterwards fine.
> >> I also very much doubt that Huxley actually died from LSD poisoning, as > >> it truly is remarkably non-toxic...
> >The difference between the effective dose and the lethal does is large > >you mean. I was told that LSD was safe from accidental contamination > >because any toxic byproduct of the synthesis was going to be in such > >minute quantity as to be safe. IOW on a microgram for microgram basis > >LSD is very toxic.
> Compared with what?
Compared to what else is likely to be generated in the synthesis.
-- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
> >> >>>> LSD is, in fact, not very toxic at all; Huxley had to consume a > >> truly > >> >>>> staggering amount of the stuff, and it's not clear even then that > >> >>>> that's what actually killed him.
> >> I also very much doubt that Huxley actually died from LSD poisoning, as > >> it truly is remarkably non-toxic...
> >The difference between the effective dose and the lethal does is large > >you mean. I was told that LSD was safe from accidental contamination > >because any toxic byproduct of the synthesis was going to be in such > >minute quantity as to be safe. IOW on a microgram for microgram basis > >LSD is very toxic.
> No, that's not what it means at all; it means nobody takes much of it. > Which is true. The effective dose is tiny. Nobody ever takes a dose > that isn't measured in micrograms. The guy who invented it took a few > milligrams, which he assumed was so little it would be harmless, and > was tripping, completely out of his head, for several days.
> The lethal dose, on the other hand, isn't actually known, but last I > heard was estimated to be a couple of liters. Which nobody would > _ever_ take. It's easier to kill yourself drinking water (and > screwing up your electrolyte balance) than by overdosing on LSD.
You gotta be very careful with Hydrogen dioxide, and Hydric acid and also Hydrogen base. It's one of the major causes of death in this country.
-- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
>> >> >>>> LSD is, in fact, not very toxic at all; Huxley had to consume a >> >> truly >> >> >>>> staggering amount of the stuff, and it's not clear even then that >> >> >>>> that's what actually killed him.
>> >> >>>However, the only elephant ever given LSD died. The experimenters >> >> >>>figured out what had gone wrong, but for some reason the experiment >> >> has >> >> >>>not been repeated.
>> >> >>Elephants never liked Timothy Leary, for some reason.
>> >> > What went wrong was that they calculated the dose as for a human, >> >> > adjusted for body weight. The St Louis Zoo, owners of the elephant in >> >> > question, grasped immediately how stupid this was; they were *very* >> >> > pissed off. The adjustment should be for the weight of the brain, or >> >> > possibly the total tissue of the nervous system.
>> >> Actually, they scaled up from the dosage required to put a kitten into a >> >> rage.
>> >> Apparently this seemed sensible to them at the time...
>> >> (Source: _Scaling: Why is animal size so important?_ by Knut Schmidt- >> >> Nielsen. Will check out the original paper when I get back to work, just >> >> to make sure.)
>> >> (Also, it's nice to know that if you have a kitten that is vexing you >> >> with its redoubtable calmness and self-possession, you can look in the >> >> literature and find out how much LSD you need to fix this infelicity.)
>> >> It's also possible that it wasn't the acid that killed the elephant, but >> >> the drugs they gave him whilst attempting to revive him, as two other >> >> elephants later given a similiar dose just behaved strangely (well, they >> >> were tripping...) for several hours, and were afterwards fine.
>> >> I also very much doubt that Huxley actually died from LSD poisoning, as >> >> it truly is remarkably non-toxic...
>> >The difference between the effective dose and the lethal does is large >> >you mean. I was told that LSD was safe from accidental contamination >> >because any toxic byproduct of the synthesis was going to be in such >> >minute quantity as to be safe. IOW on a microgram for microgram basis >> >LSD is very toxic.
>> Compared with what?
>Compared to what else is likely to be generated in the synthesis.
Are there any reliable toxicity figures for LSD? My understanding is that it is difficult to kill any animal with it.
-- Don Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
In article <proto-FC42E9.20194814112...@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>You gotta be very careful with Hydrogen dioxide, ... It's one of the >major causes of death in this country.
I doubt it. There's just not that much hydrogen peroxide around (the usual name for the molecule that has hydrogen + two oxygen atoms). Dihydrogen oxide, now THAT'S a killer.
Amusingly, Wikipedia has redirections on both:
Hydrogen peroxide (Redirected from Hydrogen dioxide)
Properties of water (Redirected from Dihydrogen oxide)
In article <he1eac$c7...@reader1.panix.com>, t...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
> In article <proto-FC42E9.20194814112...@news.panix.com>, > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote: > >You gotta be very careful with Hydrogen dioxide, ... It's one of the > >major causes of death in this country.
> I doubt it. There's just not that much hydrogen peroxide around (the > usual name for the molecule that has hydrogen + two oxygen atoms).
What? Why do you think there are so many unlikely blondes around? You are referring to H2O4, I presume? Or does darling Wiki have its own version?
|
