Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: Jon Kirwan on 4 Apr 2010 06:33 On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 19:55:51 +1000, John Tserkezis <jt(a)techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote: >Jon Kirwan wrote: > >> I can, however, discuss the case of what *I* can purchase if >> I choose to do so right now. At this point, were I to be >> making a decision, I would be facing a doubling of price to >> make the 1102 choice. Or so. That's just the situation I >> see, is all. I am not forced to insist on the same supplier, >> because I don't have to choose from the same supplier. Just >> these products, whereever I may find them. > > No, that's an unfair comparison. You're using two entirely different >vendors and their very different pricing structures, to compare the same >series product. > > It's like saying vendor A has a blue car for some price, but you don't >want a blue car, you want red. > Except vendor A doesn't have a red car in stock, though vendor B does, >at double the price. > > By this reasoning, red paint costs double the blue paint. I simply don't follow your concerns, at all. It's very simple. I can _actually_ buy a DS1052E from DealExtreme, delivered, for $404. That's a simple fact. Anyone can go there and look for themselves. And they are in stock, as well. You are the one that ponied up the $200 difference. That number apparently means something to you, which is fine as far as I'm concerned. However, I had looked around a bit and found the DS1102E generally around the $795 mark. A few places showed less on a google search but when I went there to the actual site, the numbers were higher. That is where I got my "almost double" figure from. It's justified, because I looked and that is what I found. If _you_ want to make the point that the "almost double" is wrongly spoken, like I said earlier I'd be very glad to have a site posted here that moves the number down to your own $200 figure (which isn't mine, it's yours, but I'd be glad to see it anyway.) And like I said, I'd be glad to modify my statement to incorporate what you do find once you do find it and post it and I check it out. Not that it matters at all. People will still make their own decisions about what figure _they_ think is important to them, regardless of what number you feel is important to you. None of this really changes much. At the most, you get to find a somewhat smaller margin between the two and others who may be interested get to think about it for themselves. It's no nevermind to me, either way. Except that I'd be glad, if it helps you feel better, to modify my comment to incorporate some new details you might find. I'd enjoy it, in fact. So have at it. Jon
From: John Fields on 4 Apr 2010 10:54 On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 13:01:06 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >Say miracles are true. --- OK, "Miracles are true." There _is_ evidence to support that viewpoint, BTW --- >Miracles happen randomly. --- From our point of view, perhaps, put from the points of view of the beings performing the miracles, it may well be that the miracles are performed according to some rules to which we're not privy. --- >Miracles are like a lottery ticket. --- No, they aren't. In order to win at a lootery, one has to provide a material input to a pool from which winnings are drawn. Miracles, on the other hand, occur spontaneously, seemingly, and don't have to paid for up front. --- >In a lottery, you might win but most likely you won't. >You might get a miracle, but most likely you won't. --- If you don't believe in miracles, then of course you'll pass them off as just being serendipitous events with no cause behind them, so you get to believe in no miracles, even if they're happening all around you. Isn't allowing you to filter out of reality what you find inconvenient or troubling a miracle? --- >Due to the randomness, one can conclude God is capricious. --- Assigning the limitations of our state of being to a superior lifeform which isn't bound by the rules we've been bound to is certainly putting the cart before the horse since what appears to be random to you may have been a series of events perfectly calculated by God to achieve His ends. Wanna be God? Do the mechanical and electrical design for a machine run by a microcontroller, then write the code to run it, and you might get a tiny taste of what it's like to be divine from the point of view of your machine. --- >Question is: Is capricious behavior bad or good? --- It's neither, and both. --- >I say bad because I get a comfort from people that are predictable. --- Of course. If you know, a priori, how people are going to act, then you can easily head them off at the pass and enforce your standards of behavior on them, leaving you conveniently in charge and unthreatened by the unpredictability of their actions. --- >Crazy people such as suicide bombers are capricious. --- Nonsense. Suicide bombers are highly motivated to achieve their _single_ goal, and know full well that they'll die when they achieve it. --- >I say the more capricious, the more unlikeable. --- _You_ say? You seem to be taking the position that you're talking from a position of some authority when, in fact, the opposite is the truth. --- >A God (with superpowers galore) would be the ultimate in capriciousness. --- From your point of view, perhaps, but then you're trying to anthropomorphize a superior being in order to make the rules you're bound by, and your inability to understand them, its fault. --- >Even if God exists, this not a God to love. --- It isn't ? A universe full of beauty and wonder, eternal questions to keep us from being bored, a body to interact physically with it and a mind to drive with? If you can't love that then I suggest the problem is yours. --- >One of the elements of love is that we trust who we love not to >capriciously hurt us. --- I'm sure cancer cells which refuse to go into remission and coexist with their host peacefully feel the same way about their host's immune system. --- >What about all the sad people that didn't get their miracle? --- How do you know they didn't? A momentary glitch in mains power causes your alarm clock to go off a few seconds later than usual and you don't die in the traffic accident you see happen right in front of you in the intersection where you cursed the red light for making you stop... A miracle, or just a random happening? --- >God hurt them capriciously. --- I don't think there's anything that says God can't decide whether what we're asking for is good for us or not and then act according to what He deems best. --- >And there are vastly wayyyyy more people in that boat compared to those >that flinged their arms in the air and said 'It's a miracle!' --- Capriciously asked for miracles doesn't mean that the refusal to grant them is also capricious. --- >What is needed is a miracle that can be duplicated in a lab.. >This was done with that floppy cold fusion.. --- Many miracles have been duplicated in the lab and, as we become more sophisticated, we come to realize more and more that Clarke was right when he said that: "Any sufficiently enough advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." JF
From: John Fields on 4 Apr 2010 11:31 On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 18:26:35 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >I say more atheist engineers are open about being atheist than Christian >engineers are open about being Christian (or other religion). --- From nearly all of the responses to your posts in this thread, I don't think anyone really cares what you have to say since you only ever post self-serving flammatory rhetoric and half-baked sophomoric opinions bereft of corroborating evidence. In addition, your cheap pretense to authority with that arrogant little "I say" prefix is duly noted. JF
From: John Fields on 4 Apr 2010 12:09 On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 20:41:11 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >I suspect the only way a Christian engineer can keep a religion (belief >in God) is to keep it unchallenged. >Now the way to keep it unchallenged is to undermine anyone who >challenges the religion. >One way to eliminate challengers is to use insults, call them stupid and >to pick on anything possible. >However, this type of response can be seen as a defense to something >that has no strength in reason. iows...If you got nothing, throw mud. > >The other way for a Christian engineer to keep a religion is to never >ever apply analytical skills to ones religion. Doing so might cause >foaming at the mouth. > >And this is my theory how intelligent electronic engineers can be >Christian. --- Hmm... In the beginning you state: "I suspect the only way a Christian engineer can keep a religion (belief in God) is to keep it unchallenged." And then toward the end you state: "The other way for a Christian engineer to keep a religion is to never ever apply analytical skills to ones religion. Doing so might cause foaming at the mouth." Note that there's a logical inconsistency between "the only way" and "the other way", which implies there are two ways, instead of just one. That kind of sloppy thinking, along with unwarranted, amateurish, conjecture and what seems to be basic intellectual dishonesty, is what lies at the heart of your entire "presentation", that device being designed, it seems, to justify your atheistic stance by using the reluctance of the non-atheists in the group to mud-wrestle with a pig. --- JF
From: John Fields on 4 Apr 2010 12:12
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 21:33:13 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >If you're a Christian engineer you would never allow yourself to think >the above. Instead you might seek different methods to maintain the God >delusion such as persuading yourself that all I write is just nonsense >from a stupid person. --- There's really no persuasion needed... JF |