Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: Jon Kirwan on 2 Apr 2010 04:28 On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 00:32:33 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >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'. Well, there are other points. Such as whether or not it qualifies as 'dishonest' for Rigol to sit mum while selling the exact same physical item for nearly twice the price. But yes. That, too. Phil nailed it with John Larkin's sensitivity being due to fielding similar product arrangements. I don't know his market, but I'd guess that his products are not nearly as commodity-like and his customers value his support and service and feel there is more of a direct, mutual partnership in place than would be in Rigol's case. So I don't imagine he has much to really worry about. >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 remember it. ;) >I'm guessing this thread is not going to last that long due to being >more focused on psychology. We'll know soon enough, I suppose. >This time my interest is on how engineers rationalize their religion. Well, for most who lack the math and physics to fully apprehend 'theorics' and not just 'practix', it's probably not a very interesting question. So far as I can tell, there is only one person in this group whose answer would be most interesting (has a religious viewpoint _and_ a solid grounding that few others have) and he is perhaps the most unlikely to engage the topic here. That individual is Phil Hobbs. It is _his_ approach to rationalization that would be most intriguing to follow. The rest really doesn't float my boat. Too many holes where magical thinking may leak in. I'm not expecting a response from him, by the way, and I very much respect his choice not to play here. I'm just saying his thoughts are ones I'd listen more closely to, is all. >I'm also examining if engineers encapsulate religious stuff in their >heads by making it unchallenged internally or/and externally. This topic is indeed what I was thinking when I mentioned Feynman's article. He goes on, severely, about the need for honesty and challenging one's own thinking, ruthlessly. It's a way of being, part of who you must become, and something that must seep from every pore of your body. If that kind of rigor is lacking, "the planes won't land," he says. And he is right. >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... Yeah. >> 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. Here's the article's text: http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm It's worth reading, closely. Jon
From: John Tserkezis on 2 Apr 2010 04:41 Jon Kirwan wrote: > Well, there are other points. Such as whether or not it > qualifies as 'dishonest' for Rigol to sit mum while selling > the exact same physical item for nearly twice the price. I was under the impression it was more like a ~$200 difference. I briefly checked ebay for prices, and found ~$650-~$850 between the models. That sounded fair to me, which made it a challenge to support my own argument that it was the same hardware. Double price is another ball game altogether. They deserve what they get.
From: John Fields on 2 Apr 2010 09:23 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 18:22:09 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >In article <pgbar5tad973ruhjttv83rls0ull3cmvac(a)4ax.com>, >jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... >> >> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 15:41:49 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> >> wrote: >> >> >Wouldn't it make me look stupid if you were bluntly clear and posted 'I >> >Larkin am an atheist' or 'I Larkin am a Christian'. >> >> --- >> Well, the thing is: >> >> 1. In reality, one has nothing to do with the other. >> >> 2. You already look stupid, and, >> >> 3. Your trying to get JL to play your game of "Here are your only >> choices, choose now!" makes you look stupider yet. >> --- >> >> >Show which way I was confused. >> >> --- >> How many ways does the wind blow? >> --- >> >> >If you're a Christian, why not make it public. >> >You're in the gang, in the club, part of the group, in the herd. >> >You should easily be able to post 'I am Christian.' >> >Or post 'I am a _______ Christian.' >> >Where _____ is one of those 38000 Christian denominations. >> >It should be easy for you to post that you're Christian because the >> >majority of North America is Christian. >> >This should be as easy you writing 'I am an engineer.' >> >Are you going to let some stupid atheist make you shy in posting what >> >religion you are in. >> >> --- >> Oh, my... >> >> It seems that by being, by your own admission, a stupid atheist, you've >> never pondered the difference between being spiritual and religious or >> sorted out the difference between spirituality and religion. >> --- >> >> >Perhaps there's lots of Christians on SED that would feel all warm and >> >fuzzy inside after you post 'I Larkin am a Christian engineer.' >> >> --- >> And what would be wrong with that? >> >> Being a Christian engineer would bind him to the Old Testament as well > >But do you have the balls to tell me what religion Larkin is in? --- Grasping at straws, are we? In the first place, it's certainly not within your bailiwick to demand anything from anyone here, and in the second place all of your sophomoric attempts at "coercion" seem to be falling on deaf ears. Thirdly, this unhealthy obsession you seem to have for Larkin borders on what I would consider to be sexual in that in another post you referred to his frequency of sexual activity in order to try to make a point. Tsk, tsk, tsk... JF
From: John Fields on 2 Apr 2010 09:33 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 18:42:00 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >In article <qqhar5h75vlclgnjo91v0kjdjs28fnope4(a)4ax.com>, spam(a)spam.com >says... >> >> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 18:22:09 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >But do you have the balls to tell me what religion Larkin is in? >> >> Why the obsession with what religion the man is? Did it ever occur to >> you it's none of your business. >> >> Your getting pretty fucked-up. Take a couple of valium and call it a >> night. > >Yup.. >I'm just waiting for Larkin to write that his religion is none of my >business.. --- Since it should be clear to even the least intellectually gifted that Larkin's spiritual leanings really _are_ no concern of yours, what's left is that you're merely trolling in order to get a response from him. Sad, really... JF
From: John Fields on 2 Apr 2010 09:48
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 20:40:50 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >In article <4llar5p9f943cv0rt0jjfn90avjo5utqb2(a)4ax.com>, >OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org says... >> >> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 16:23:48 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> >> wrote: >> >> >The bible would certainly be of interest if physics,chemisty and biology >> >books quoted the bible on gravity theory, atomic theory and genetics. >> > >> >Those mid east bronze age bible writing desert monkeys didn't even know >> >they were breathing nitrogen. >> >> >> Whouda thunk that all those times I called you an idiot that it was >> actually spot on!? > >Maybe you can help me out and explain what you found wrong in my post. --- The Bible is certainly of interest, but it isn't a science book. Consequently, references to gravity theory, atomic theory and genetics won't be found there, and your denigration of its authors as well as the book itself is disingenuous. JF |