Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 2 Apr 2010 02:57 On Apr 2, 3:21 am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 01:17:30 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >penchant > > You have a penchant for parroting others' jackassed remarks. > > You do not need to parrot anyone. You already are a jackass. Dimbulb parrots himself. Since he is almost always wrong, the intelligent reader could conclude that I am tolerably intelligent, but since the opinion has been generated by Dimbulb, one wouldn't take it seriously. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 2 Apr 2010 03:00 On Apr 2, 5:11 am, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 18:50:34 -0700, Archimedes' Lever > > > > <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > >On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:15:21 -0700, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >>On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 01:17:30 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > >><bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >>>On Mar 31, 2:13 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> > >>>wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:38:36 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >>>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>>> >On Mar 31, 1:47 am, John Larkin > >>>> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>>> >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:06:12 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >>>> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>>> >> >On Mar 30, 4:12 pm, John Larkin > >>>> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>>> >> >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:40:43 +1100, "David L. Jones" > > >>>> >> >> <altz...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> >> >> >D from BC wrote: > >>>> >> >> >> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so... > >>>> >> >> >> Time for another mega-troll. > > >>>> >> >> >> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering? > > >>>> >> >> >There appears to be no evidence that delusion and electronics design ability > >>>> >> >> >are mutually exclusive. > > >>>> >> >> >Dave. > > >>>> >> >> Not as long as you're happy spinning the pcb etch four or five times, > >>>> >> >> and shipping a lot of bugs. To get it right the first time, you can't > >>>> >> >> lie to yourself about anything. > > >>>> >> >Your opinions about the way the genetic system might work did imply > >>>> >> >that you were deceiving yourself pretty thorooughly in that area.. > > >>>> >> Genetic science is, if anything, trending in the directions I > >>>> >> expected. DNA and its supporting systems is indeed a very > >>>> >> sophisticated, nearly intelligent machine, hardly a > >>>> >> random-mutation+selection process. Evolution guarantees that it be so. > > >>>> >And you still don't get it. DNA doesn't know anything about itself, > >>>> >merely whether the phoneme it has produced is good enough to survive > >>>> >and reproduce. All the "sophistication" involves differernt ways of > >>>> >doing the random mutation process - in big gene-duplicating chunks > >>>> >versus single nuclear polymorphisms. > > >>>> >This is about as far from "intelligent" as one can get. > > >>>> Nice guesses, > > >>>Have your read any of the recent papers on the subject? You might try > >>>to plow through "Modularity" ISBN 0-226-73855-8. It was published in > >>>2004, but the stuff coming out in the current "Proceedings of the > >>>National Academy of Science" still seems to fit the same set of ideas. > > >>>> but there is no conclusive proof for your claim either, > > >>>Or so you'd like to think. > > >>>> yet you tout it and yourself as being the only viable "observation", > > >>>I do seem to know more about the subject than you or John Larkin - > >>>which isn't much - but if either of you took the trouble to listen > >>>somebody who has studied the subject at a respectable university (as > >>>John Larkin claims that one of his kids has done) you could get an > >>>even better informed opinion. > > >>My older daughter is a biology professor at University of the Pacific. > >>She has her own office (with a window!) and her own 1200 square foot > >>lab full of gene sequencers and stuff like that. And assistants to do > >>the wet stuff. I discuss this stuff with her now and then, and she is > >>finally starting to admit that I might not be crazy. > > >>She also has two kids and five motorcycles. > > >>John > > > Did SloDork ever spawn any of himself? I sure hope not. > > No, he's no good at mechanics either. krw invents his own reality yet one more time. Since a couple of my patents depend on mechanical insights, he's got it wrong again, which is no surprise. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Tserkezis on 2 Apr 2010 03:01 D from BC wrote: Since I can't answer for anyone else, I'll answer for myself: > What I'm focusing on is and gaining evidence for is how taboo it is to > ask what religion one is in. Not taboo from where I'm standing. I'm quite happy to tell people my religious persuasion. I am a member of the church of atheism. Not only do I not believe in any god or higher being, if you try to convince me otherwise, I *especially* do not believe in YOUR god, and will actively ridicule your god. I'm not *that* well read on every religion, but I know enough about Christianity that it'll cover me for the 80% of the bible bashers that think they're going to make me a new customer. > Why is it taboo? Again, not for me. > What is at stake? My belief system. It works quite well for me. My belief system is based on my observations, my research, heresay is noted, but does not form any significant part of the equation. The rest gets filled in based on my previous experience, previous research, odds, and sometimes, I make things up as I go along. Everything has a weighting according to the level of factual data I have on any given subject. Odds, heresay, things I make up, weigh significantly less than real data (A hypothesis, and tests to indicate that hypothesis. If you're well trained, I'll take your word for it assuming you've done the above tests). If I make a mistake, it's my own. I don't blame god, I don't blame the devil for making me do it, and my church doesn't have confession, where I can absolve my sins, and start afresh. No cop-outs in other words. > Why the secret? If I make a decision based on data that was a "guess", and it turns out bad for me, I keep it a secret because I don't want to look like an idiot, and subsequently get found out and look like an idiot. Or, I admit to my error, look like an idiot. Either way, I look like an idiot. Beats making a decision based on taking a story someone else has told me. Then I'll look like a complete idiot. > Why is this untouchable? Because my decisions are my own, and I'm not going to have anyone tell me otherwise. > Is there a price to pay after announcing one is Christian > (or other)? Sure, when someone on the street (near our local mall) asks me if I had discovered Jesus, I either waste some time convincing them I'm not interested, or I tell them to get fucked, which takes less time, but it's five seconds I'll never get back. > What's more crazy.. Asking Larkin if he thinks Michael Jackson is still > alive or asking what religion he is in? What's the difference? It's like asking someone if Elvis is alive. Some think he is. Either way, we're all crazy, it's just a question of degree. > Is making one's religious belief public in an engineering forum > extremely sensitive? If so.. why? It doesn't make any difference to your skill, be it useless, or competent. > What is the fear. Someone will have a reason to make fun of you. If you talk, it'll make you look bad. If it's not me doing the making fun of, it'll be someone else. > Why do people resort to personal attacks, turn into cry babies and loose > their balls when it comes to announcing their religion? People start wars over religion. Pretty much proves they're cry babies, and have no balls. > Krw is lying that Larkin has written what religion he is in. Who cares? > Krw can demonstate he is not lying by proving me wrong(and look smart) > by saying what religion (or other) Larkin is in. Again who cares? > But he can't cause he's lying. :-) This isn't about who's following what religion is it? It's just you trying to show everyone you have huge balls. Except that no-one actually cares.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 2 Apr 2010 03:02 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:43:05 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >bad wrighting. You can say that again. I'll bet that you have never successfully 'wrought' anything. Bwuahahahahah!
From: D from BC on 2 Apr 2010 03:32
In article <dh2br5plrf75su3b1j6ptnko3be3mmonsd(a)4ax.com>, jonk(a)infinitefactors.org says... > > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:35:39 -0700, D from BC > <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: > > >mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so... > >Time for another mega-troll. > ><snip> > > What a megatroll it is, too. I think there are more entries > here than for Dave's Rigol thread, amdx's Swing Votes thread, > or your earlier BCIT EET thread. Religion may troll better > than politics or electronics. Controversial topics get my attention and I credit Dave for landing a nice one. afaik the core issue is 'a hack or not to hack'. My thread last year entitled 'Any Christian Electronic Designers Here?' exceeded 666 posts (made easy to remember by some joker :) ) and fizzled out after 1000 iirc. I'm guessing this thread is not going to last that long due to being more focused on psychology. This time my interest is on how engineers rationalize their religion. I'm also examining if engineers encapsulate religious stuff in their heads by making it unchallenged internally or/and externally. Last years thread was mostly science vs religion and ridiculous things in the bible. That thread was all over the place. Evolution, the bible, philosophy, morals, the supernatural, miracles, prayer, scandals... > > I just received my "Analog Circuit Design, Art Science and > Personalities" and "The Art and Science of Analog Circuit > Design" books, edited by Jim Williams, in the mail a day or > two, ago. To any wondering why you might write as you did, a > nice article in the latter one, by R. Feynman about cargo > cults, may apply. ;) > > Jon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult 'Cult behaviors usually involved mimicking the day to day activities and dress styles of US soldiers, such as performing parade ground drills with wooden or salvaged rifles. They carved headphones from wood and wore them while sitting in fabricated control towers. They waved the landing signals while standing on the runways. They lit signal fires and torches to light up runways and lighthouses.' Reminds me of the movie Field of Dreams. 'If you build it, he will come'.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHTsQ9qePrQ For the Pacific cult, they built it and nobody came. :P Nice example of people going religious sparked by confusion. -- D from BC British Columbia |