Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 8 Nov 2006 07:46 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eisilb$8ss_006(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <l7idnSIMuLZKodLYRVnysw(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eindoh$8qk_004(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <L62dnR_UNZvcstLYnZ2dnUVZ8tqdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ein7c1$8qk_004(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <kTb3h.1659$r12.387(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, >>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>>>news:oojpk2tg7e5iphjsl7qdafkucotg01m67q(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:59:10 +0000, Eeyore >>>>>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Expansionism ? What expansionism ? After we ( and the other allies ) >>>>>>>>kicked his >>>>>>>>troops back out of Kuwait he wasn't doing any expansion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It didn't get into the papers much, but there was a continuous >>>>>>> campaign of bombing and so on for many years after the Gulf War had >>>>>>> allegedly ended. To enforce the "no fly zone" mostly, I think. Look >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> up. >>>>>> >>>>>>And none of that had anything to do with "expansionism". At worst, it >>>>>>*might* have been Saddam attacking his own citizens in the no-fly >>>>>>zones. >>>>>>However, based on the patterns of flights and such, I remember >>>>>>analysts >>>>>>at >>>>>>that time suggesting it was only Saddam thumbing his nose at Shrub Sr. >>>>> >>>>> This was during the time when Clinton was in office. >>>> >>>>So the Clinton administration did indeed keep Saddam in check? Is that >>>>what >>>>you are saying? >>> >>> Take your reading comprehension pill and read me in the morning. >> >>No need to be rude, it was an honest question. >> >>However, earlier on in the thread it was commented that the enforcement of >>the north and south no-fly zones were "keeping Saddam in his cage" and >>here >>you say this was an act of the Clinton administration - which, again >>previously, you said did nothing. > > I should have added the word useful to that sentence. So you say the NFZs were not useful? >> >>You cant have it both ways. > > Tying up the military in babysitting jobs is doing nothing useful. > That seemed to be Clinton's style. I never understood it because > this approach did not work with Germany. The NFZ were put in place under Bush 1's leadership. So you do actually say that Bush 1 did nothing useful? This "approach" has worked quite well in Korea for the last 50 years. It also worked very well in Germany - which if you haven't noticed is now a democratic nation where the Nazi party are outlawed. One critical point is that, while lessons from history should be heeded and learned, it is a major fallacy to make assumptions that because "A" caused "B" in Country "C" then "X" will cause "Y" in country "Z." This is especially true when the two countries are populated from very, very different cultures.
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Nov 2006 07:43 In article <454FAC45.2450AEC4(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >> > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >The days of inheriting a bicycle shop that grew into >> >> > >an airframe manufacturing enterprise are gone. >> >> > >> >> > No, it's not. >> >> >> >> Do please supply an appropriate example. >> > >> > Hewlett Packard, Apple, Mc$hit, Dell... Who knows where the next >> > one will pop up. >> >> Not sure who you mean by "Mc$hit", but not one of those companies is < 30 >> years old. How about some *recent* examples. The business climate in this >> country now is very, very different than it was in the 70s. > >To be fair, Dell's 22 years old. I have other examples in another post. From Keith's and my POV, 22 years in the computing biz is young, very young. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Nov 2006 08:03 In article <ccfuk29tpphhkcnt7u5ar9obt5ntet9u3j(a)4ax.com>, George O. Bizzigotti <gbizzigo(a)mitretek.org> wrote: >On Sun, 05 Nov 06 13:11:06 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >[I've read Eric Lucas's response, and I generally agree with what he's >posted. Note that I believe he has more relevant experience in general >plant design that do I, so I'll comment mostly on areas relevant to >chemical warfare agents, where I have some experience.] > >>I want to learn how a government head starts this stuff up. >>Wouldn't he send his brightest to learn how make a plant >>and production lines and stuff. And at the same time, >>wouldn't he start to figure how to make these recipies from >>scratch? His plans were to bite all hands that supplied him; >>a tactical approach would be to learn how to make all the >>stuff you got from those hands. > >This was in a discussion about fabricating highly corrosion-resistant >equipment. Right. It's been difficult keeping topics straight :-). > The recipes for those materials are all broadly available, >but it's the fabrication skills, e.g., how does one make welds that >are not corrodible or prone to cracking, that are much more difficult >to obtain. OH!!! Ok, now I'm getting a hint of what has to be done. I've never seen this stuff getting made so I don't know the kinds of work involved. > In this example, don't assume that welding technique for >ordinary carbon steel will work for these alloys. My understanding is >that the Iraqis figured some of this out by themselves, but it took >considerable time. Note also that certain of the fabrication skills >are not "taught" except in the shops of the few companies that >manufacture such equipment, and it may be easier to enroll at MIT than >to place someone in one of those shops. So if one is the head of government, trying to become self-sufficient, how does one get themselves bootstrapped? Is this where all that talk about hiring consultants (which I read in history books) comes in? In the case of the oil fields, other countries, mostly France and Britain operated the oil fields.....then gradually, or suddenly if there was a war, control of operations was transferred to the rulers of those countries. Does the same thing happen with chemical manufacturing plants? > >[snip] > >>In the 80s and even now, lots of stuff is automated. Can you >>do automation when you're making chemistry thingies? > >Plants handling supertoxic materials are typically very automated, but >there are still maintenance tasks that require very skilled workers to >work on the automated units. There are certain design features that >are necessary so that these workers, even dressed in moon suits, can >safely work in the same room as the units. There are other design >features that are necessary so that the operators can safely sit at >their consoles in the same building as the operating units. Automation >is only one measure among many needed to mitigate the hazards to >acceptable levels. It would be facinating to "see" how all of this evolution of manfucturing gear evolved. > >>>The suicidal scenario is a concern for small-scale production, e.g., a >>>single batch on a scale that can be achieved using manual >>>manipulations, but it's much less likely once one starts to speak of a >>>plant designed for continued operation. This is why I qualified my >>>statement to "at least some terrorists." > >>I understood. I guess I don't know what a "small" batch is. >>Note that I'm still facinated by war story accounts that measure >>supplies in tons. > >For my reference to manual manipulations, think a large chemistry >laboratory. I'd need to look at specific procedures to give an exact >figure, but my educated guess is that the maximum is in the low 10s of >kg. OK. thanks :-). > >[snip] > >>So there has to be some kind >>of degree program that teaches kids how to make these plants. > >One point that was sort of buried in my reply and that Dr. Lucas made >in a slightly different way: chemical engineering schools teach >students necessary but not sufficient skills for design of an entire >plant. OK. I missed this one. > Junior engineers typically work on design teams with more >senior designers. Juniors typically will be responsible for individual >components, whereas it is the senior engineers who guide the entire >team in preparing an integrated design, i.e., "make the plant." After >extensive experience, first with individual components and then with >smaller systems, engineers then are qualified to head the teams that >design entire plants. If I understand correctly, this process of >increasing levels of responsibility for a design is what Dr. Lucas >referred to as "years of actual field experience." I didn't get that interpretation. Thanks for the translation. The computer biz used to work the same way. But a CPU and its software isn't a plant built with cememnt walls and the work could be done in any old building. /BAH >Regards, > >George >********************************************************************** >Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115 >Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558 >3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail: gbizzigo(a)mitretek.org >Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519 >********************************************************************** >
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Nov 2006 08:09 In article <eiq575$qnu$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <eiprjo$8ss_003(a)s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <einool$7gj$10(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>In article <eikp37$8qk_001(a)s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>In article <QqSdnTiCZpUVWtHYRVnyuQ(a)pipex.net>, >>>> >>>>Neither will work efficiently nor deliver service on demand. You >>>>have to plan how to be sick or have somebody do it for you. That >>>>is why people who are very ill have to have a patient advocate. >>>>These were not needed before this medical insurance business >>>>became a right instead of a benefit. >>>> >>>>Canada's system does not work for a certain class of services. >>>>People who need those services were able to come to the US and >>>>get them in a timely manner. When the US converts to a >>>>single payer system, like Canada, the Canadians and the USians >>>>who need these services will have to go to another country >>>>whose medical infrastructure will provide. >>> >>>Right now, a number of Americans are going to ... India for medical care. >>>Care to explain why? >> >>Because our medical system is changing to a national health run >>by many chiefs. Since all that paper pushing has to be funded, >>monies are going to bureaucracies rather than infrastructure >>and labor. The workers are now union; so that adds to labor costs. > >What? The people who fill out paperwork at insurance companies? No way. >Unions have few such clerical workers as members. Workers are those who do the actual delivery of service...the ones that count. > >>All access to medical help is done through insurance company >>doors. > >These people are going to India because (1) they don't have insurance and >American medicine costs too much, or (2) their insurance won't cover what they >need to have done. Especially the second reason. That is a harbinger of what will happen if the system becomes a national entity run by the government bureaucracies. The medical field is unique in that all of its business is personal. Managing what has to be small business relationships and models with a corporate umbrella can't work well. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Nov 2006 08:14
In article <45509E5D.4D41A4DD(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >> >Right now, a number of Americans are going to ... India for medical care. >> >Care to explain why? >> >> Because our medical system is changing to a national health run >> by many chiefs. Since all that paper pushing has to be funded, >> monies are going to bureaucracies rather than infrastructure >> and labor. The workers are now union; so that adds to labor costs. >> All access to medical help is done through insurance company >> doors. Doctors are no longer small business[wo]men and the business >> is no longer a local business. > >Now would you care to explain why ppl are going to Indai for medical care ? Because the decisions of treatment is no longer done at the doctor-patient level; this is a small business model. AT the moment these decisions are at the corporate levels and are not working. If you raise the heirarchy to a national government level, it is guaranteed that medical treatment decisions will always be "wrong" from the POV of the receiver of the treatments. Decisions are based at the corporate and higher levels on stats and never fine-tuned to the individual. Medical delivery services have to custom-tailored by definition; the further up the treatment decisions are, the less tailored those treatments will be. /BAH |