Acme

Widia is just a term for cemented carbide so sharpen as you would any carbide tool. I wouldn't try changing the angle as you lose a lot of material and the cemented tip is relatively small to begin with. Check online or otherwise consult the manufacturer for recommended material applications. Drilling speed is based not only on material being drilled, but the diameter of the bit. Here's a page with some guidelines. >> http://store.curiousinventor.com/guides/drill_speed

I accept your rigorous qualifications insofar as it applies to the scientific milieu. If you meant it to discount my recommendation however I'd like to make some defense of it. Bloopy made a specific clarification saying "I am coming from a musician/artist background, hence the request for something very visual and aesthetically compelling.", and while I looked at your Wikipedia link specifically and considered posting it in my earlier reply I didn't feel it fit Bloopy's bill. Your links are/were worth throwing in the mix nonetheless and we can only hope Bloopy comes back to let us know. I think I poorly described the diagrams I was remembering and found no illustrations in review of the field-guide, but the diagrams are a little more rigorous than I may have let on. As I recall they are -more rigorously described- lattice diagrams illustrating one class of space groups, the lattice system. There are lattice system diagrams at the Wikipedia page on Crystal structure. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_structure Because the field-guide has visual and aesthetically compelling photgraphs of crystals which are keyed to the lattice system diagrams, I still think it would be of interest and/or value in Bloopy's mise en scène .

Good afternoon Mike. G'day et als. Morning for me. I have no dog to walk but I have a garden to dig in preparation for Spring and in anticipation of seeing the smiling faces of plants. So on with the discussion. Several things come to mind. First, and possibly foremost, is the matter of definitions. One word. Dictionary. Get one and use it. Clever is well defined, has several meanings, and does not need new ones other than the usual way words get new definitions which is by way of common usage that comes to the attention of dictionary writers. If current definitions -including listed archaic uses- of a word do not fit your intention, then don't use the word. And to reiterate, don't try and redefine them. You only confuse and/or alienate your readers. Second, on the issue of considering your readers Mike and with careful treading so as to have constructive criticism not be construed as a personal remark/attack, I have this observation. Your use of unconventional punctuation, CAPITALIZATION, and s p a c I n g is off-putting TO -------------------------------the ReAdEr. Reading your posts is often like walking a flight of poorly built stairs that have different heights and tread widths. So much effort goes into not stumbling or falling that one questions whether the TRIP is worth the risk. Lastly, I have seen some shreds here that do have some hope of going into a well-framed discussion that satisfies you Mike as well as many of the rest of we respondents. Specifically the ideas of feedback loops and peoples' positioning and perspective in and on this wonderful and sometimes dumbfounding situation that we find ourselves in as self-aware thingys. It strikes me that the real issue is one of consciousness -or awareness if you prefer- and that before any speculation on other-than-human consciousness or self-awareness is undertaken that it is only good & proper to establish some consensus on the human condition. I have in mind as it happens a very particular layout which I have found is just such a good and proper approach, but I rather think it deserves its own thread. To that end I have some reading to do in order to refresh my memory, as well as some thinking, ruminating, and other such considerations as I see fit to accomplish a clever and worthwhile presentation. Mind you the layout is not mine and the layer-outer is of the opinion that no one can truly prove anything in Philosophy. With that I am in full agreement.

Don't give it a second thought. I'd be the first to admit that my writing can be obscured by my stylistic use of multiple levels of meaning. On top of that I often make sentences or paragraphs illustrative of the ideas or concepts I mean to describe with the words they contain. Judging by Hypervalent Iodine's admonition to me this can prove to be even more troublesome for those whose first language is not English. With Mike this may extend to differences in American English and the Queen's English. That said, the whole point of this thread seems to be to talk about something that either people don't want to talk about, or don't like to talk about, or simply can't talk about. But as talking about people likely constitutes personal remarks, I will join the fray and refrain from talking about it.

I used to have a copy of the National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Rocks and Minerals, and as I recall there is a section illustrating and describing crystallographic forms. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0394502698/ref=asc_df_03945026983017129?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=pg-1583-86-20&linkCode=asn&creative=395097&creativeASIN=0394502698

Sounds fair enough. I was trying to be clever.

Roger grammatical issues. I took careful pains to specifically address exactly what you said and show that it was contradictory. Then I was trying to show that your arguments make as much sense as consulting a strawberry. You are basically arguing that in the absence of knowledge, making up any old thing in its place is fine. Fine as in just as logical and reasonable as having knowledge and making real calculations. I would label your effort as mental masturbation, but even that has some promise of a denouement. I suppose I will just give you credit for getting nowhere the long way. Edit: No anger for you Unity unless you earn it.

It was simply my input on personal incredulity. As we know of, this Universe displays one form of an efficient and stable mechanism of creation and destruction. We do not know of any other and therefore we have no relative "view point" to see cleverness for cleverness is a measure relative to another, if you get what I am saying. Personal incredulity concerning what? You now say we know of no other viewpoint, but when you said we're not the best decider you imply you know of other deciders which would be other viewpoints. If we're just going to make any wild speculation that passes for thinking, then I propose we let strawberries decide what is or is not clever. Certainly you can't rule them out by your reasoning, so I must be right. I understand perfectly well that this is all just so much word-salad. As to calculating what you propose, you don't actually have the necessary data/other viewpoint to do that. By the same token you can't even show validity of your equation/expression.

Well this isn't a café in the UK and since you know -"getting a distinct feeling" as you say- that you're steaming folks up, then continuing to add fuel to the fire is simply rude.

Whatever that wording is, it isn't a sentence in English, Queens or otherwise. You said: Steamed up=pissed off. Since you said "everybody" then it's not just me you think you have bothered. I'll let the other respondents give their own assessments.

Therin lies the rub. If you ignore your wife's better judgment then what chance have we? I assure you that intentionally pissing people off is not healthy behavior. If you doubt me you can always check with a professional in the mental health field.

And what other decider have you in mind?

Yes I know such matters aren't contentious in the UK, and I've never been there. Wonder of wonders I do a bit of reading from time to time. By & large science & reason have won out when the issue has come to legislation or gone to court. In the broader social arena it varies widely by demographic considerations such as region, age, and education. A bit of reading on your part would do wonders in expanding your contemporary cosmopolitanism. You seem to imply that scientists & science enthusiasts are narrow minded and/or that they never consider the wonder of nature and other such philosophical musings. That is erroneous. What is wrong with what you are doing here is that after seeing that your writing has created discord & vexation, you carry on anyway. It strikes me as rather mean-spirited. By all means correct me or justify the behavior as is fitting.

I can only speak for myself. First, I'm not frightened; I'm angry. Here in the US we have folks trying to pass this creationism/intelligent-design/cleverness malarkey off as science and then trying to make it part of the science curriculum in public schools. This at a time when the US is apparently falling behind many other countries in the math and science scores as it is. Whatever name you hide 'it' behind, it's philosophy at best and religious fanaticism at worst. But friend, it is most assuredly not science. That you claim to be oblivious to all this I find hard to swallow given your opening. You apparently got grief for 'it' in other threads and what do you do but start up yet another. Seems to me you are purposefully provoking people. If you think it's fear you're provoking then more's the shame on you than if you just mean to anger people or rattle their cages. Whether you understand why folks are getting steamed up or not strikes me as irrelevant in the face of you knowing that fact and yet persisting. So; what part of that -if any- do you not understand?

Clearly, Ovid never heard of "hell hath no fury..." True. He being dead and all when Congreve penned it. But if I may be so bold to suggest he understood it. >> source: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.03.0016&redirect=true Try as I might, I cannot improve on that.

What is de rigueur de rigueur de rigueur is sound reasoning well applied. Echoes are not only phenomena of caves by the way. For example, mountains and canyons suffice. Hearing one's own voice from outside [the body] by an echo is just that and the fact is not lessened by any other means of hearing one's voice from outside. (Such as recordings.) If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it. ~ W. C. Fields

I take it you mean 'clever' as in the following: source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/clever Aren't you just putting a wolf in sheep's clothing? The wolf of course is creationism, and rather than the black wool of intelligent design you have put white wool on clever. Keep in mind that depending on where one is from, clever is not as clever may seem. Quickly, bring me a beaker of wine, so that I may wet my mind and say something clever. ~ Aristophanes

Ney. Hindsighting pandemonioum in his Devil's Dictionary. source: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/with/keyword/echoes/2.html My point of course is that contrary to your assertion, hearing one's own voice is not unprecedented in history because echoes predate voices. Completely natural and unrelated to technology. Moreover, your invoking evolution in the context you did is...well...applesauce. Can you hear me now?

No no. It's you who has the soft heart for her. I think there's a pill for that. But just above when you credited s1eep with being correct... that was a bit spongy in the caranium. Whether you call my heart affectionate, or you call it womanish: I confess, that to my misfortune, it is soft. ~Ovid Whether you call their heads quarrelsome, or you call them knucklish, I convey that to our misfortune they are blocks. ~ Acme

When disturbed by his voice the ancient echoes clamor appropriate responses most gratifying to his pride of distinction. ~ Ambrose Bierce

Why do you even keep bothering? Hardened heart? What about softened head? I mean really; what is so valuable about her friendship that you are willing to accept her affronts to you? A quote from one of Phiforall's links: source: http://www.icr.org/article/8007/ I note that of the 10 references for that article, 5 refer to other creationist articles and 3 of the 5 give a link. Of the remaining 5, only one link is given and that's to the pop-sci article the author means to chip away at. Still think you can convince the author there with patience Chadn? Really? If so, go ahead and just do it rather than just talk. Or at least instruct us how it should be done and we will carry out your instructions.

Hold the bark down flat with a ruler or other straight-edge so that just a thin piece sticks out, then cut along the straight-edge with a sharp knife. Then move the straight-edge so another little strip of bark shows and cut another strip. Use the thinnest bark you can find of course. Even if the scale isn't exactly right, I think you will score more points for using native material than using a better scale material such as commercial thread.

The Urantia Book was written by William S. Sadler and a cadre of co-conspirators for the purpose of promoting eugenics. It's not worth the ink it is printed with. I did not see it mentioned here, so I recommend The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels.

The Nazca lines are visible from surrounding hills. Let they without truth throw the first mock....??

From the first link: As I pointed out earlier, the flood story in Genesis is a re-write of the flood story in Gilgamesh. Minus the extra gods and other such bothersome elements as did not fit the Genesis writers' agendas of course. (Note the misspelling of Neanderthal. d'oh! ) It is also incumbent on me to mention the repeated use of subtle ridicule by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. in the article. E.G. "claiming that scientists", "would allegedly ferret out", "attempted to map", "then apply a majority rule approach", or "studies really add very little". Perhaps someone should tell them ridicule doesn't work.