Now that you've outed me as over educated, (although I never went to Cal) can anyone here help me implement an efficient Hilbert Transform on an xmos processor? :)
ah, a berkeleyite--now that all comes together. it's interesting that he says i'm somehow obsessed with him, but he isn't obsessed with me, just like graniteclimber started alleging that i was "stalking" him, but he wasn't stalking me by digging up my wife's salary and posting it on a supertopo thread.
i guess granite is probably another berkeley geek. but, really, do either of them ever go climbing?
he just tried to hide behind a hilbert transformation, but it won't do much good. supertopo is harried by little minds who can't really hold forth in their alleged fields of expertise, so they come on here and try to show off. eeyonkee's* recent thread is a case in point. why aren't these guys posting on math and biophysics forums with all their good friends and colleagues? i'm guessing they need a much smaller pond in which to play the big fish.
*correcting this here (see apology below), i said eeyonkee but i meant moosedrool. as an aside, i wonder if andrzej has ever been close enough to a live moose to have it drool on him.
i'm not accusing eeyonkee* of hiding. he's one of the most forthright know-it-alls i've ever encountered.
and i'll say it again, it's refreshing to have a polish fellow accusing so many others of stupidity.
*once again, my bad. i meant moosedrool again. (can anyone ever "mean" moosedrool?) moosedrool is a forthright know-it-all. i'm not sure what eeyonkee is at all.
supertopo is harried by little minds who can't really hold forth in their alleged fields of expertise, so they come on here and try to show off
hahaha, I've thought that myself... but then, I am not "here" to talk about physics or any other science, I'm "here" for climbing (and I find I'm less and less "here" because of the lack of it). While "here" however, if some science topic comes up, I am more than happy to post...
...also, I've found that trying to explain science concepts to non-scientists to be a great discipline for myself in "getting it right" especially in science topics I should know better, for instance, evolution, climate, mind, etc...
but I'm happy to stop if Tony tells me to (well, maybe not).
They are the true examples of Berkeleitis, projecting their own Berkeleitiac's consciousness onto the world outside of them.
Calling others Berkeleitiacs when they themselves are the Berkeleitiacs.
If a poster's got to hide his true identity, he must be a little tiny bit insecure. If he/she is posting here, they soon figure out that they post at their own risk. It's the learning/experience curve. And some, of course, never seem to learn at all, probably, though my experience here is so short.
Hell, I did the hello/goodbye already. I freely admit that I'm not very mature for my years, which, of course, was my life goal...
i have to apologize--i was way down the golden state freeway into the flatulent bowels of orange county this morning when i realized that i totally confabulated moosedrool and eeyonkee. i do believe you are separate guys, no? but with both of you going on simultaneous evolution threads, i'm sure i just put you in the same place in my, as i quoted portia, little mind. the only excuse i can offer is that i perceived an apparent ungulatory connection, assuming eeyonkee has some sort of affinity for eeyore, winnie the poohbear's buddy. perhaps he's flattered to be mistaken for a supercerebral pole.
i've done this before, to my everlasting embarrassment--confusing "looking sketchy there" for "the user formerly known as stzzo" on a joshua tree thread. but geez, guys, you'd make it easier if you just posted as yourselves.
i've always enjoyed hearing polish, MD--a feathery-sounding, fascinating language. i've had enough russian to get a very tenuous handle on it.
amazing, isn't it, don paul, how a convicted murderer of the iconic stature of charles manson would be given a public platform to spew on this subject? most of those monsters go away forever. but if they're useful ...
Your paranoia made you jump to the conclusion he was being used by the government to discredit your movement. TinfoilTonyHint: he says nothing about 911
supertopo is harried by little minds who can't really hold forth in their alleged fields of expertise, so they come on here and try to show off. eeyonkee's* recent thread is a case in point. why aren't these guys posting on math and biophysics forums with all their good friends and colleagues? i'm guessing they need a much smaller pond in which to play the big fish.
Just for the record, Tony, evolution is an avocation of mine. It's not what I do. I have a Master's degree in Geology, which I worked in for 13 years. I have worked as a software engineer for the past 12 years. Your posts show an inclination for insulting others. Your posts about evolution show that you are severely lacking in understanding of this subject. All in all, you are quite a tool!
no, i didn't watch the video. like i say, way too many links and videos on here, and no one seems to be able to communicate otherwise. i'm assuming it's what i can read on the page--charles manson lending his considerable influence and prestige to the 9/11 truth movement. since we're talking about evolution on this thread, i also assume it's just another little pebble being lobbed my way. or are we working charles manson into the evolution debate? since you have so much time to watch all these things, monolith, why don't you tell us what it's about? i guess you just rushed back here after finding the answer to your question about hilbert transformations on soaps.com. i was expecting the next post to be "hannibal lechter's presidential picks".
and while i've got your attention, you and graniteclimber--same guy, right?
evolution is an avocation of mine too, eeyonkee. your post also shows an inclination to insult others (me, for instance), and i think, to put it in your words, that you are "severely lacking in your understanding" of many aspects of evolution. take note there--two important differences in our rhetoric. i said, "i think you are" and you said, "you are". i said "aspects of evolution" and you said "evolution".
by the way, i must apologize again for confusing you with moosedrool. i may not know much, but i should be expected to be able to count toes on ungulates.
it seems that we had riley on here adhering to a random mutation point of view as the engine of evolution. then we had someone post a paper--i believe it was moosedrool--which seemed to bolster my point of view, that there is an actively experimental aspect, simply because adaptation seems to take place so quickly. would you care to address that, eeyonkee?
Let us know!