Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #608042 > unrolled thread

Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that????

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-06 08:42 -0800
    Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 09:21 -0800
    Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-06 18:31 +0000
      Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-06 15:24 -0800
        Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 15:30 -0700
          Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-06 17:54 -0800
            Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 06:13 -0800
              Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-07 10:10 -0800
                Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 10:22 -0700
                  Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-07 10:54 -0800
                    Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 14:27 -0700
                Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 11:25 -0800
                  Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-07 12:39 -0800
                    Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-08 17:52 +0000
            Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 08:59 -0700
              Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-07 15:40 -0800
                Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 15:59 -0700
        Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-07 05:21 +0000
          Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-06 22:58 -0800
            Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-07 00:02 -0800
              Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-07 14:21 +0000
                Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-07 10:15 -0800
                  Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 10:24 -0700
            Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 06:22 -0800
              Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-07 10:36 -0800
                Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 11:39 -0800
                  Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-07 13:40 -0800
                    Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-08 17:45 +0000
                      got i.t noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 11:04 -0800
                        Re: got i.t noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 15:29 -0800
                Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-11 21:33 -0800
                  Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-12 00:05 -0800
                  Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-12 11:02 -0800
                    Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 11:10 -0700
                      Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2016-12-12 15:13 -0500
                        Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 13:22 -0700
                          Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2016-12-12 17:00 -0500
                            Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 17:34 -0700
                            Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-14 22:26 -0800
                              Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-14 22:30 -0800
                                The Man Wo Built The Atomic Bomb... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-14 22:53 -0800
                                  Re: The Man Wo Built The Atomic Bomb... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-14 22:59 -0800
                                  The Man Wo Built The Atomic Bomb... pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-12-14 23:04 -0800
                                    Re: The Man Wo Built The Atomic Bomb... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-15 20:39 -0800
                                      Re: The Man Wo Built The Atomic Bomb... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-16 10:50 -0800
                                  Re: The Man Wo Built The Atomic Bomb... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-14 23:08 -0800
                                    build it & they will bomb noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 09:50 -0800
                                      Re: build it & they will bomb noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 13:41 -0800
                              Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 09:36 -0700
                            Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 13:49 -0800
                        Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? "Michael R N Dolbear" <me@privacy.net> - 2016-12-12 22:05 +0000
                          Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 18:39 -0600
                            Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 17:37 -0700
                          Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2016-12-13 02:18 -0500
                    Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-12 20:03 +0000
        Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 06:11 -0800
    Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 13:23 -0800
      Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-06 13:46 -0800
        Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? "Anon Y. Mouse" <nobody@home.invalid> - 2016-12-07 09:33 -0500
          Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-07 07:25 -0800
    Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 11:12 -0800
      Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-07 11:33 -0800
    Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2016-12-09 15:45 -0500
      Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 20:22 -0500
        Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> - 2016-12-11 17:17 +0000
      Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-12 00:15 -0800
        Re: Wasn't Albert Einstein wrong about that???? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-12 09:47 -0800

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#608141

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>The Starmaker wrote:
>> 
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >
>> > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> >
>> > >Here is an actual design of a bomb by Albert Einstein:
>> >
>> > >http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/bomb1.jpg
>> >
>> > >Do you wanna see more?
>> >
>> > Was that supposed to be a joke? You said an "actual design of a bomb by
>> > Albert Einstein" but that looks more like a kid's drawing that took all
>> > of three seconds to do.

>> He could have put it on a match cover...it's his idea, what difference does it make if it looks like
>> a 3 year old drew it, it's an idea for a bomb, not a Piacasso drawing.

Now it's just an "idea for a bomb", not a "design". At least you're moving
in the right direction as you walk it back.

>Here is a letter Einstein wrote with his same style designs

>http://www.e-manuscripta.ch/zut/content/pageview/315520

>http://www.e-manuscripta.ch/zut/content/pageview/315523


>it's just the way he draws...

More scribblings, nothing that could be considered any sort of "design".
Plus the date is 1913, before the discovery of fission and when we didn't
really understand the atom yet, also before GR.

Remember, it took the best scientists in the US (except Einstein) four
years to design and build the Bomb, it's not something that can be
scribbled in three seconds that looks like it was done by some kid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#608174

Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> 
> >The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> > >Here is an actual design of a bomb by Albert Einstein:
> >> >
> >> > >http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/bomb1.jpg
> >> >
> >> > >Do you wanna see more?
> >> >
> >> > Was that supposed to be a joke? You said an "actual design of a bomb by
> >> > Albert Einstein" but that looks more like a kid's drawing that took all
> >> > of three seconds to do.
> 
> >> He could have put it on a match cover...it's his idea, what difference does it make if it looks like
> >> a 3 year old drew it, it's an idea for a bomb, not a Piacasso drawing.
> 
> Now it's just an "idea for a bomb", not a "design". At least you're moving
> in the right direction as you walk it back.
> 
> >Here is a letter Einstein wrote with his same style designs
> 
> >http://www.e-manuscripta.ch/zut/content/pageview/315520
> 
> >http://www.e-manuscripta.ch/zut/content/pageview/315523
> 
> >it's just the way he draws...
> 
> More scribblings, nothing that could be considered any sort of "design".
> Plus the date is 1913, before the discovery of fission and when we didn't
> really understand the atom yet, also before GR.
> 
> Remember, it took the best scientists in the US (except Einstein) four
> years to design and build the Bomb, it's not something that can be
> scribbled in three seconds that looks like it was done by some kid.

I'm back to giving English lessons...

to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#608178

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:584851B9.7922@ix.netcom.com: 

> Michael Moroney wrote:
>> 
>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> 
>> >The Starmaker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> > >Here is an actual design of a bomb by Albert Einstein:
>> >> >
>> >> > >http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/bomb1.jpg
>> >> >
>> >> > >Do you wanna see more?
>> >> >
>> >> > Was that supposed to be a joke? You said an "actual design
>> >> > of a bomb by Albert Einstein" but that looks more like a
>> >> > kid's drawing that took all of three seconds to do.
>> 
>> >> He could have put it on a match cover...it's his idea, what
>> >> difference does it make if it looks like a 3 year old drew
>> >> it, it's an idea for a bomb, not a Piacasso drawing. 
>> 
>> Now it's just an "idea for a bomb", not a "design". At least
>> you're moving in the right direction as you walk it back.
>> 
>> >Here is a letter Einstein wrote with his same style designs
>> 
>> >http://www.e-manuscripta.ch/zut/content/pageview/315520
>> 
>> >http://www.e-manuscripta.ch/zut/content/pageview/315523
>> 
>> >it's just the way he draws...
>> 
>> More scribblings, nothing that could be considered any sort of
>> "design". Plus the date is 1913, before the discovery of
>> fission and when we didn't really understand the atom yet, also
>> before GR. 
>> 
>> Remember, it took the best scientists in the US (except
>> Einstein) four years to design and build the Bomb, it's not
>> something that can be scribbled in three seconds that looks
>> like it was done by some kid. 
> 
> I'm back to giving English lessons...
> 
> to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design
> 
mo·ron

/'môr?än/

noun
informal

noun: moron; plural noun: morons

a stupid person.

synonyms: fool, idiot, ass, blockhead, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, 
imbecile, cretin, dullard, simpleton, clod; 

See also: Starmaker

-- 
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland: 
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#608142

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 1:57:51 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
> > 
> > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > 
> > >Here is an actual design of a bomb by Albert Einstein:
> > 
> > >http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/bomb1.jpg
> > 
> > >Do you wanna see more?
> > 
> > Was that supposed to be a joke? You said an "actual design of a bomb by
> > Albert Einstein" but that looks more like a kid's drawing that took all
> > of three seconds to do.
> 
> 
> I never said Albert Einstein was a great artist! Why are people
> criticizing his..art? It's not art,
> it's a design for a bomb..that he drew on his letterhead. 
> 

You were criticizing him for a mistaken estimate of the weight
of an atomic bomb.

SM: "Albert Einstein was wrong about that. That's a fact."

You posted the image presumably to show he was involved in the design.

> He could have put it on a match cover...it's his idea,
> what difference does it make if it looks like
> a 3 year old drew it, it's an idea for a bomb, not a Piacasso drawing.

No one criticized his drawing. We criticized your posting of it.
If your point was not a criticism of his estimation of the design
of the first atomic bombs, then what's your point?

ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#608180

edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 1:57:51 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > >
> > > >Here is an actual design of a bomb by Albert Einstein:
> > >
> > > >http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/bomb1.jpg
> > >
> > > >Do you wanna see more?
> > >
> > > Was that supposed to be a joke? You said an "actual design of a bomb by
> > > Albert Einstein" but that looks more like a kid's drawing that took all
> > > of three seconds to do.
> >
> >
> > I never said Albert Einstein was a great artist! Why are people
> > criticizing his..art? It's not art,
> > it's a design for a bomb..that he drew on his letterhead.
> >
> 
> You were criticizing him for a mistaken estimate of the weight
> of an atomic bomb.
> 
> SM: "Albert Einstein was wrong about that. That's a fact."
> 
> You posted the image presumably to show he was involved in the design.
> 
> > He could have put it on a match cover...it's his idea,
> > what difference does it make if it looks like
> > a 3 year old drew it, it's an idea for a bomb, not a Piacasso drawing.
> 
> No one criticized his drawing. We criticized your posting of it.
> If your point was not a criticism of his estimation of the design
> of the first atomic bombs, then what's your point?
> 
> ed


The original poster wrote: bombs, meaning more than one bombs

"After all, Einstein was never involved with the actual design of
the bombs."


I posted one design of bombs Albert Einstein was involved in...


Did you see Albert Einstein's secret design of a Nuleaur Reactor for the making of the stuff that goes in a bomb????

The top part is a cut out of Einstein's nucleur reactor patent...
the bottom cutout is a simple nucleur reactor design
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG


The rest below is for reference...

http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/1-s2.0-S0172219005001742-gr1.jpg
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/AtomReactorCutawayLarge-aaa.jpg
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Lpage1.jpg
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Nuclear.jpg



any questions?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#608202

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 1:36:17 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 1:57:51 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > >Here is an actual design of a bomb by Albert Einstein:
> > > >
> > > > >http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/bomb1.jpg
> > > >
> > > > >Do you wanna see more?
> > > >
> > > > Was that supposed to be a joke? You said an "actual design of a bomb by
> > > > Albert Einstein" but that looks more like a kid's drawing that took all
> > > > of three seconds to do.
> > >
> > >
> > > I never said Albert Einstein was a great artist! Why are people
> > > criticizing his..art? It's not art,
> > > it's a design for a bomb..that he drew on his letterhead.
> > >
> > 
> > You were criticizing him for a mistaken estimate of the weight
> > of an atomic bomb.
> > 
> > SM: "Albert Einstein was wrong about that. That's a fact."
> > 
> > You posted the image presumably to show he was involved in the design.
> > 
> > > He could have put it on a match cover...it's his idea,
> > > what difference does it make if it looks like
> > > a 3 year old drew it, it's an idea for a bomb, not a Piacasso drawing.
> > 
> > No one criticized his drawing. We criticized your posting of it.
> > If your point was not a criticism of his estimation of the design
> > of the first atomic bombs, then what's your point?
> > 
> > ed
> 
> 
> The original poster wrote: bombs, meaning more than one bombs
> 
> "After all, Einstein was never involved with the actual design of
> the bombs."
> 
> 
> I posted one design of bombs Albert Einstein was involved in...
> 
> 
> Did you see Albert Einstein's secret design of a Nuleaur Reactor for the making of the stuff that goes in a bomb????
> 
> The top part is a cut out of Einstein's nucleur reactor patent...
> the bottom cutout is a simple nucleur reactor design
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG
> 

A nuclear reactor is not a bomb.
> 
> The rest below is for reference...
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/1-s2.0-S0172219005001742-gr1.jpg

You call this heat exchanger design a pattern for making a bomb?
No name on the image, so we do not know who did it.

> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/AtomReactorCutawayLarge-aaa.jpg

A cartoon of a nuclear power plant (looks like circa 1950'a).
Not signed, but I don't think Einstein made this one.

> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Lpage1.jpg

An image from a patent fro a refrigeration design.
Not a bomb design.

> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Nuclear.jpg

High level concept of nuclear plant. Again not evidence of the origin.


No bombs in any of these images.

> any questions?

none I expect you to be able to answer.
ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#608219

edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 1:36:17 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 1:57:51 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Here is an actual design of a bomb by Albert Einstein:
> > > > >
> > > > > >http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/bomb1.jpg
> > > > >
> > > > > >Do you wanna see more?
> > > > >
> > > > > Was that supposed to be a joke? You said an "actual design of a bomb by
> > > > > Albert Einstein" but that looks more like a kid's drawing that took all
> > > > > of three seconds to do.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I never said Albert Einstein was a great artist! Why are people
> > > > criticizing his..art? It's not art,
> > > > it's a design for a bomb..that he drew on his letterhead.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You were criticizing him for a mistaken estimate of the weight
> > > of an atomic bomb.
> > >
> > > SM: "Albert Einstein was wrong about that. That's a fact."
> > >
> > > You posted the image presumably to show he was involved in the design.
> > >
> > > > He could have put it on a match cover...it's his idea,
> > > > what difference does it make if it looks like
> > > > a 3 year old drew it, it's an idea for a bomb, not a Piacasso drawing.
> > >
> > > No one criticized his drawing. We criticized your posting of it.
> > > If your point was not a criticism of his estimation of the design
> > > of the first atomic bombs, then what's your point?
> > >
> > > ed
> >
> >
> > The original poster wrote: bombs, meaning more than one bombs
> >
> > "After all, Einstein was never involved with the actual design of
> > the bombs."
> >
> >
> > I posted one design of bombs Albert Einstein was involved in...
> >
> >
> > Did you see Albert Einstein's secret design of a Nuleaur Reactor for the making of the stuff that goes in a bomb????
> >
> > The top part is a cut out of Einstein's nucleur reactor patent...
> > the bottom cutout is a simple nucleur reactor design
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG
> >
> 
> A nuclear reactor is not a bomb.


You just don't get it...


Albert Einstein built the atomic bomb. That means *everything* that goes into the making of an atomic bomb. Including
the nucleur reactor, the men of the manhattan project, all that  was needed to build an atomic bomb was was designed by Albert Einstein.

Here you have Albert Einstein's secret design  patent of a Nuleaur Reactor for the making of the stuff that goes in a bomb

 The top part is a cut out of Einstein's secret nucleur reactor patent...
 the bottom cutout is a simple nucleur reactor design
 http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG


In other words, all nucleur reactors are based on Albert Einstein secret patent design disguised as a refrideration process.


The rest below is for reference...

http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/1-s2.0-S0172219005001742-gr1.jpg
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/AtomReactorCutawayLarge-aaa.jpg
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Lpage1.jpg
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Nuclear.jpg



any questions?

http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html



> >
> > The rest below is for reference...
> >
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/1-s2.0-S0172219005001742-gr1.jpg
> 
> You call this heat exchanger design a pattern for making a bomb?
> No name on the image, so we do not know who did it.
> 
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/AtomReactorCutawayLarge-aaa.jpg
> 
> A cartoon of a nuclear power plant (looks like circa 1950'a).
> Not signed, but I don't think Einstein made this one.
> 
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Lpage1.jpg
> 
> An image from a patent fro a refrigeration design.
> Not a bomb design.
> 
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Nuclear.jpg
> 
> High level concept of nuclear plant. Again not evidence of the origin.
> 
> No bombs in any of these images.
> 
> > any questions?
> 
> none I expect you to be able to answer.
> ed


Now you're showing your stupidity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#608290

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>> On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 1:36:17 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
>> > edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > I never said Albert Einstein was a great artist! Why are people
>> > > > criticizing his..art? It's not art,
>> > > > it's a design for a bomb..that he drew on his letterhead.

A design would be enough information to create a bomb, if you had the
proper material/components. That was a kid drawing, not a "design".

>> > Did you see Albert Einstein's secret design of a Nuleaur Reactor
>> > for the making of the stuff that goes in a bomb????
>> >
>> > The top part is a cut out of Einstein's nucleur reactor patent...
>> > the bottom cutout is a simple nucleur reactor design
>> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG

The top part is half of a patent diagram for a refrigerator Einstein co-designed.
The bottom part might be a block diagram for a coal-fired electricity power
plant, which would have been around then and Einstein would have known of them.

>The rest below is for reference...

>http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/1-s2.0-S0172219005001742-gr1.jpg

The full patent diagram of Einstein's refrigerator. You can buy similar propane
refrigerators for your RV these days.

>http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Nuclear.jpg

Of course, nothing significant in how to make a nuclear reactor.
Other than the reactor itself, this is the same as any old fossil
fueled power plant.  Only three items indicated in the reactor.
And of course, no connection to Einstein.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#608296 — got i.t

so, it wasn't a chafing dish, then

> >> > The top part is a cut out of Einstein's nucleur reactor patent...
> >> > the bottom cutout is a simple nucleur reactor design
> >> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG
> 
> The top part is half of a patent diagram for a refrigerator Einstein co-designed.
> The bottom part might be a block diagram for a coal-fired electricity power
> plant, which would have been around then and Einstein would have known of them.
> 
> >The rest below is for reference...
> 
> >http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/1-s2.0-S0172219005001742-gr1.jpg
> 
> The full patent diagram of Einstein's refrigerator. You can buy similar propane
> refrigerators for your RV these days.
> 
> >http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Einstein-is-the-bomb/Nuclear.jpg
> 
> Of course, nothing significant in how to make a nuclear reactor.
> Other than the reactor itself, this is the same as any old fossil
> fueled power plant.  Only three items indicated in the reactor.
> And of course, no connection to Einstein.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#608328 — Re: got i.t

steampower, go steampower!

> > And of course, no connection to Einstein.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#608710

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 12:36:16 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > Did you see Albert Einstein's secret design of a Nuleaur Reactor for the making of the stuff that goes in a bomb????
> >
> > The top part is a cut out of Einstein's nucleur reactor patent...
> > the bottom cutout is a simple nucleur reactor design
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG
> 
> In other words, you have cut and paste together a complete fabrication.

It's not a cut and paste "fabrication, it's a illustrating the comparison.


> Why do you lie so much?
> 
> Patent available at uspto.gov
> http://tinyurl.com/jgva7os
> Wikipedia article on the Einstein–Szilard refrigerator
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator


Now here Ladies and Gentlemen is a perfect example of
the Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog's people of the world...

the 'scientific community' like the above poster come in two types...
the uninformed, and the misinformed (there is no informed among them).

He points a link...(a fraudulent link) of a fraudulent patent...

First here is the actual real patent on Google Patent search engine:

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US1781541-0.png
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/33ae7c90ab316ba29555/US1781541.pdf
https://patents.google.com/patent/US1781541A/en


Now Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog points to a fraudulent patent...

notice that someone added to the original Einstein patent in calligraphy, the words:

Einstein Refrigerator
Patent number in calligraphy, and the date in calligraphy. 

Here is the FRAUDULENT patent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator#/media/File:Einstein_Refrigerator.png


and here is the REAL patent:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US1781541-0.png
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/33ae7c90ab316ba29555/US1781541.pdf
https://patents.google.com/patent/US1781541A/en




*They*, want you to 'believe' it's a refrigerator (Einstein NEVER said it was a refrigerator)

but it's not a refrigerator. 

It is exactly what it reads on top of Einstein's Patent: REFRIGERATION


now, those of yous who don't understand what REFRIGERATION means:


Refrigeration is a process of moving heat from one location to another in controlled conditions. 
The work of heat transport is traditionally driven by mechanical work, but can 
also be driven by heat, magnetism, electricity, laser, or other means.
https://www.google.com/#q=define+REFRIGERATION



It is a 'process', not a household appliance.



Don't tell me, I wrote the fuckin book!
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html


Any questions?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#608714

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 11:33:31 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> 
> Besides posting a falsified image of the Einstein patent,
> > > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG

What part is fasified??? You cannot point it out because you're...always wrong.



> 
> you also post an image of a book with an fake ISBN:
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html


It's not a fake ISBN, it's called a mock-up cover of a e-book in progress.

http://www.newdesignfile.com/postpic/2011/08/free-3d-book-cover-template-photoshop_235775.jpg



You're actually reading the contents now...thank you for your ...contribution.


Show your children Einstein's fridge. We need more stupid kids in the world..



> 
> Why do you lie so much?


you're projecting.


The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 12:36:16 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Did you see Albert Einstein's secret design of a Nuleaur Reactor for the making of the stuff that goes in a bomb????
> > >
> > > The top part is a cut out of Einstein's nucleur reactor patent...
> > > the bottom cutout is a simple nucleur reactor design
> > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG
> >
> > In other words, you have cut and paste together a complete fabrication.
> 
> It's not a cut and paste "fabrication, it's a illustrating the comparison.
> 
> > Why do you lie so much?
> >
> > Patent available at uspto.gov
> > http://tinyurl.com/jgva7os
> > Wikipedia article on the Einstein–Szilard refrigerator
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator
> 
> Now here Ladies and Gentlemen is a perfect example of
> the Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog's people of the world...
> 
> the 'scientific community' like the above poster come in two types...
> the uninformed, and the misinformed (there is no informed among them).
> 
> He points a link...(a fraudulent link) of a fraudulent patent...
> 
> First here is the actual real patent on Google Patent search engine:
> 
> https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US1781541-0.png
> https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/33ae7c90ab316ba29555/US1781541.pdf
> https://patents.google.com/patent/US1781541A/en
> 
> Now Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog points to a fraudulent patent...
> 
> notice that someone added to the original Einstein patent in calligraphy, the words:
> 
> Einstein Refrigerator
> Patent number in calligraphy, and the date in calligraphy.
> 
> Here is the FRAUDULENT patent
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator#/media/File:Einstein_Refrigerator.png
> 
> and here is the REAL patent:
> https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US1781541-0.png
> https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/33ae7c90ab316ba29555/US1781541.pdf
> https://patents.google.com/patent/US1781541A/en
> 
> *They*, want you to 'believe' it's a refrigerator (Einstein NEVER said it was a refrigerator)
> 
> but it's not a refrigerator.
> 
> It is exactly what it reads on top of Einstein's Patent: REFRIGERATION
> 
> now, those of yous who don't understand what REFRIGERATION means:
> 
> Refrigeration is a process of moving heat from one location to another in controlled conditions.
> The work of heat transport is traditionally driven by mechanical work, but can
> also be driven by heat, magnetism, electricity, laser, or other means.
> https://www.google.com/#q=define+REFRIGERATION
> 
> It is a 'process', not a household appliance.
> 
> Don't tell me, I wrote the fuckin book!
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
> 
> Any questions?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#608762

Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 11:33:31 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> 
> >Besides posting a falsified image of the Einstein patent,
> >> > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG
> 
> >you also post an image of a book with an fake ISBN:
> >> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
> 
> >Why do you lie so much?
> 
> Not even the right number of digits...
> 
> Barcode looks totally bogus, too.

Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 11:33:31 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> 
> >Besides posting a falsified image of the Einstein patent,
> >> > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG
> 
> >you also post an image of a book with an fake ISBN:
> >> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
> 
> >Why do you lie so much?
> 
> Not even the right number of digits...
> 
> Barcode looks totally bogus, too.


It's not a fake ISBN oor bogus barcodes, it's called a mock-up cover of a e-book in progress.

http://www.newdesignfile.com/postpic/2011/08/free-3d-book-cover-template-photoshop_235775.jpg


It's an EBOOK. The contents exist in electronic format...online only. I problably already got over 600 pages if printed,
not including https://vault.fbi.gov/Albert%20Einstein 

You're actually reading the contents now of the book...thank you for your ...contributions.


Did you see my science magazine?

http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/The-Starmaker-Science-Journal-2-abcd.jpg



Now about about that bogus .wikipedia page and the whole content???? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator#/media/File:Einstein_Refrigerator.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator


No comments on that fraudulent page calligraphy fruad?
Einstein Refrigerator
Patent number in calligraphy, and the date in calligraphy??? Or you girls just look the other way...pussies.


P-U-S-S-I-E-S!


-----------------------------
The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 12:36:16 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Did you see Albert Einstein's secret design of a Nuleaur Reactor for the making of the stuff that goes in a bomb????
> > >
> > > The top part is a cut out of Einstein's nucleur reactor patent...
> > > the bottom cutout is a simple nucleur reactor design
> > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Lpage1-aaaaaa-aa.JPG
> >
> > In other words, you have cut and paste together a complete fabrication.
> 
> It's not a cut and paste "fabrication, it's a illustrating the comparison.
> 
> > Why do you lie so much?
> >
> > Patent available at uspto.gov
> > http://tinyurl.com/jgva7os
> > Wikipedia article on the Einstein–Szilard refrigerator
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator
> 
> Now here Ladies and Gentlemen is a perfect example of
> the Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog's people of the world...
> 
> the 'scientific community' like the above poster come in two types...
> the uninformed, and the misinformed (there is no informed among them).
> 
> He points a link...(a fraudulent link) of a fraudulent patent...
> 
> First here is the actual real patent on Google Patent search engine:
> 
> https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US1781541-0.png
> https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/33ae7c90ab316ba29555/US1781541.pdf
> https://patents.google.com/patent/US1781541A/en
> 
> Now Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog points to a fraudulent patent...
> 
> notice that someone added to the original Einstein patent in calligraphy, the words:
> 
> Einstein Refrigerator
> Patent number in calligraphy, and the date in calligraphy.
> 
> Here is the FRAUDULENT patent
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator#/media/File:Einstein_Refrigerator.png
> 
> and here is the REAL patent:
> https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US1781541-0.png
> https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/33ae7c90ab316ba29555/US1781541.pdf
> https://patents.google.com/patent/US1781541A/en
> 
> *They*, want you to 'believe' it's a refrigerator (Einstein NEVER said it was a refrigerator)
> 
> but it's not a refrigerator.
> 
> It is exactly what it reads on top of Einstein's Patent: REFRIGERATION
> 
> now, those of yous who don't understand what REFRIGERATION means:
> 
> Refrigeration is a process of moving heat from one location to another in controlled conditions.
> The work of heat transport is traditionally driven by mechanical work, but can
> also be driven by heat, magnetism, electricity, laser, or other means.
> https://www.google.com/#q=define+REFRIGERATION
> 
> It is a 'process', not a household appliance.
> 
> Don't tell me, I wrote the fuckin book!
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
> 
> Any questions?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#608764

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:584EF44D.51C@ix.netcom.com: 

> It's not a fake ISBN oor bogus barcodes, 

Yes, it is exactly that.

> It's an EBOOK. 

("Mocked up" to look like a paper book. Dumbass.)

Ebooks get standard ISBN nubmers, just like any other. This isn't 
one. Nor will anything you write ever have one, since they're not 
free, and Mommy won't let you use her credit card to buy a block.

You're not only mentally retarded, and probably mentally ill, you're 
also also a pathetic loser with no life, and no chance of ever 
getting one.

I'm guessing usenet is literally the *only* human contact you get, 
because even your own mother won't let you out of the basement for 
dinner.

-- 
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland: 
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#608771

On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:10:45 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>news:584EF44D.51C@ix.netcom.com: 
>
>> It's not a fake ISBN oor bogus barcodes, 
>
>Yes, it is exactly that.
>
>> It's an EBOOK. 
>
>("Mocked up" to look like a paper book. Dumbass.)
>
>Ebooks get standard ISBN nubmers, just like any other.

Not necessarily.  Some outlets require ISBNs, others don't -- Amazon,
for example, does not require ebooks to have ISBNs, so some publishers
don't bother with them on ebooks they only sell there.  Those books
will show up with an Amazon item number where the ISBN would be if it
had one.

More respectable outlets like Smashwords do require ISBNs.  And most
publishers include them even on Amazon, but it isn't strictly
necessary.

> This isn't 
>one. Nor will anything you write ever have one, since they're not 
>free, and Mommy won't let you use her credit card to buy a block.
>
>You're not only mentally retarded, and probably mentally ill, you're 
>also also a pathetic loser with no life, and no chance of ever 
>getting one.
>
>I'm guessing usenet is literally the *only* human contact you get, 
>because even your own mother won't let you out of the basement for 
>dinner.

Well, I can't argue with any of THAT.




-- 
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#608788

Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote in
news:8u0u4cpb67q0vh51upff9bbenr30o62c70@reader80.eternal-september.
org: 

> On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:10:45 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>>news:584EF44D.51C@ix.netcom.com: 
>>
>>> It's not a fake ISBN oor bogus barcodes, 
>>
>>Yes, it is exactly that.
>>
>>> It's an EBOOK. 
>>
>>("Mocked up" to look like a paper book. Dumbass.)
>>
>>Ebooks get standard ISBN nubmers, just like any other.
> 
> Not necessarily.

They don't always get them, no, but if they do, it's a standard 
ISBN, not the retarded fake that dumbass faked on his fake 
"mockup" of a fake ebook that looks like a fake printed book.

>  Some outlets require ISBNs, others don't --
> Amazon, for example, does not require ebooks to have ISBNs, so
> some publishers don't bother with them on ebooks they only sell
> there.  Those books will show up with an Amazon item number
> where the ISBN would be if it had one.
> 
> More respectable outlets like Smashwords do require ISBNs.  And
> most publishers include them even on Amazon, but it isn't
> strictly necessary.

From what I understand, once you cough up the cash to get ISBNs, 
you actually get a sizable block of them at a time, so the nominal 
cost to add them to the ebook edition (which, IIRC, has to be 
different from the paper edition) is pretty close to zero.
> 
>> This isn't 
>>one. Nor will anything you write ever have one, since they're
>>not free, and Mommy won't let you use her credit card to buy a
>>block. 
>>
>>You're not only mentally retarded, and probably mentally ill,
>>you're also also a pathetic loser with no life, and no chance of
>>ever getting one.
>>
>>I'm guessing usenet is literally the *only* human contact you
>>get, because even your own mother won't let you out of the
>>basement for dinner.
> 
> Well, I can't argue with any of THAT.
> 
And even here, he mostly interacts with *himself*.

-- 
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland: 
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#608796

On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:22:28 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote in
>news:8u0u4cpb67q0vh51upff9bbenr30o62c70@reader80.eternal-september.
>org: 
>
>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:10:45 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>> Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>>>news:584EF44D.51C@ix.netcom.com: 
>>>
>>>> It's not a fake ISBN oor bogus barcodes, 
>>>
>>>Yes, it is exactly that.
>>>
>>>> It's an EBOOK. 
>>>
>>>("Mocked up" to look like a paper book. Dumbass.)
>>>
>>>Ebooks get standard ISBN nubmers, just like any other.
>> 
>> Not necessarily.
>
>They don't always get them, no, but if they do, it's a standard 
>ISBN, not the retarded fake that dumbass faked on his fake 
>"mockup" of a fake ebook that looks like a fake printed book.

Oh, I didn't waste time actually looking at that.

>From what I understand, once you cough up the cash to get ISBNs, 
>you actually get a sizable block of them at a time, so the nominal 
>cost to add them to the ebook edition (which, IIRC, has to be 
>different from the paper edition) is pretty close to zero.

It depends how many you buy.  You can buy them individually, or in
blocks ranging from 10 to something ridiculous -- five or six digits.

A single ISBN is $125.  Apparently some people are actually stupid
enough to do that.  Ten are $295 (currently on sale for $250) .  100
are $575.  $1,500 gets you a thousand.

All of these prices have gone up recently; a few years back I bought a
thousand, and that cost me $1,000, not $1,500.  I suspect the boom in
self-publishing is responsible.

(I've only used maybe thirty so far out of that thousand, but I figure
I'm all set for life now.)

And yes, the ebook and paper edition must have different numbers.  In
fact, every edition with a different price is supposed to have a
different ISBN, though nobody actually bothers for ebooks.  (They do
for paper, since otherwise bookstores using scanners can ring up the
wrong price.)




-- 
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#608828

Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote in
news:au6u4cp1vu6eh4jku097df82eg55fjtqtm@reader80.eternal-september.
org: 

> On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:22:28 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote in
>>news:8u0u4cpb67q0vh51upff9bbenr30o62c70@reader80.eternal-septembe
>>r. org: 
>>
>>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:10:45 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>>> Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>>>>news:584EF44D.51C@ix.netcom.com: 
>>>>
>>>>> It's not a fake ISBN oor bogus barcodes, 
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it is exactly that.
>>>>
>>>>> It's an EBOOK. 
>>>>
>>>>("Mocked up" to look like a paper book. Dumbass.)
>>>>
>>>>Ebooks get standard ISBN nubmers, just like any other.
>>> 
>>> Not necessarily.
>>
>>They don't always get them, no, but if they do, it's a standard 
>>ISBN, not the retarded fake that dumbass faked on his fake 
>>"mockup" of a fake ebook that looks like a fake printed book.
> 
> Oh, I didn't waste time actually looking at that.

It looked it was created by a moron who has never actually seen a 
real ISBN. Or Starmaker.
> 
>>From what I understand, once you cough up the cash to get ISBNs,
>>you actually get a sizable block of them at a time, so the
>>nominal cost to add them to the ebook edition (which, IIRC, has
>>to be different from the paper edition) is pretty close to zero.
> 
> It depends how many you buy.  You can buy them individually, or
> in blocks ranging from 10 to something ridiculous -- five or six
> digits. 
> 
> A single ISBN is $125.  Apparently some people are actually
> stupid enough to do that.  Ten are $295 (currently on sale for
> $250) .  100 are $575.  $1,500 gets you a thousand.
> 
> All of these prices have gone up recently; a few years back I
> bought a thousand, and that cost me $1,000, not $1,500.  I
> suspect the boom in self-publishing is responsible.
> 
> (I've only used maybe thirty so far out of that thousand, but I
> figure I'm all set for life now.)
> 
> And yes, the ebook and paper edition must have different
> numbers.  In fact, every edition with a different price is
> supposed to have a different ISBN, though nobody actually
> bothers for ebooks.  (They do for paper, since otherwise
> bookstores using scanners can ring up the wrong price.)

Life is too complicated. I think I'll go back to watching porn and 
cat videos. But not at the same time.

-- 
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland: 
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609127

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> 
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
> news:08f59f18-7745-4017-a6e5-7746a6da69dd@googlegroups.com:
> 
> > On Monday, 12 December 2016 22:00:57 UTC, Lawrence Watt-Evans
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:22:28 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> >> Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote in
> >> >news:8u0u4cpb67q0vh51upff9bbenr30o62c70@reader80.eternal-septem
> >> >ber. org:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:10:45 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
> >> >> Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> >> >>>news:584EF44D.51C@ix.netcom.com:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> It's not a fake ISBN oor bogus barcodes,
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Yes, it is exactly that.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> It's an EBOOK.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>("Mocked up" to look like a paper book. Dumbass.)
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Ebooks get standard ISBN nubmers, just like any other.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not necessarily.
> >> >
> >> >They don't always get them, no, but if they do, it's a
> >> >standard ISBN, not the retarded fake that dumbass faked on his
> >> >fake "mockup" of a fake ebook that looks like a fake printed
> >> >book.
> >>
> >> Oh, I didn't waste time actually looking at that.
> >
> > To point out: you're being cross-posted in sci.physics.
> > I think I'm not because Google doesn't do it.
> >
> > If I've understood correctly - which seems not worth
> > the trouble - the book isn't finished.  And it's a
> > collection of sm's posts on Usenet.  And possibly
> > also the replies.  In which case, I call sm a
> > poopie head and I demand a royalty of $100 per copy
> > of his book containing this comment.
> >
> > I'm sceptical that there is even an act of collection
> > being performed; however, the previous sentence stands.
> >
> Even if there is, he's too fucking stupid to ever get it into a
> form that can be shared with others.


The stupidity of yous people dumbfounds me! 

Now I have to waste my time explaining to yos what an "ebook" is...


e-book 

     

Definition of e–book

    :  a book composed in or converted to digital format for display on a computer screen or handheld device
'https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/e%E2%80%93book


This book...
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

is a book
composed in
digital format for 
display on a computer screen.


The contents of this book is in
digital format...called Usenet.

It exist only on digital format..
can be read
on a computer screen
(like yous reading now stupid!)

It is posted on Usenet, a digital format
communication system
 that are posted to servers on a worldwide network.


It is not a ebook like you find on Amazon with extentions like epub, mobi, ...

it is...a Usenet worldwide network publication.



Capice? Comprende?? 


Next year I'm going to have to come back and kick some ass around here...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609128

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+man+who+built+the+atomic+bomb%22&biw=1280&bih=871&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlgcbMyPXQAhXHgVQKHYSIDKIQ_AUIBygC&dpr=1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web