Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: George O. Bizzigotti on 9 Nov 2006 09:30 On Wed, 08 Nov 06 13:03:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ccfuk29tpphhkcnt7u5ar9obt5ntet9u3j(a)4ax.com>, > George O. Bizzigotti <gbizzigo(a)mitretek.org> wrote: [regarding skills necessary for fabrication of unusual materials] >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? Consultants might work, although I'm not confident that many consultants have this sort of hands-on fabrication experience. The way to do this might be to start some sort of joint petrochemical project with provisions requiring training local workers in some of these techniques. This option probably takes more time and a lot more funding than simply sending some of the lads off to MIT. >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? I'm not really aware of the history on this one way or the other. I do know that chemical plants typically came years after the initial resource exploitation (i.e., oil fields), by which time many countries were more interested in joint ventures than in allowing foreigners to build plants on their own. However, the risk of expropriation (particularly in autocratic countries) was such that companies would be loathe to entrust their most sensitive trade secrets to a joint venture. At the stroke of a pen, they could have discovered that they had trained their newest competitor. Thus, the host government may in the end still not have the complete skill set to be self-sufficient. I suspect that some trial and error would be required even under the joint venture scenario. [snip] >> 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. I would have put it in terms of risk. A junior software engineer working outside the box might come up with something truly revolutionary, or he or she might screw up. The benefits of the former are tremendous, the risk of the latter is pretty much limited to the individual's salary and relatively minor costs for office space, a computer or three, and all the caffeinated beverages the kid can consume. A junior chemical engineer is much less likely to come up with something revolutionary (working in a 100+ year-old field versus a much younger field), whereas the downside risk is wasting $billions on construction of a faulty design and the lives of the workers if uncaught faults compromise safety. Thus, in the computer biz, the boss quite rationally tells the kid to go off and figure it out on her own, whereas in the chemical biz, only a fool would not keep a kid under close supervision initially. 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 ********************************************************************** -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: lucasea on 9 Nov 2006 09:30 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eivcoa$8qk_020(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <WSl4h.9674$r12.933(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eisl7r$8qk_003(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> 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; >> >>What are you on about? I went to the doctor with a headache the other >>day, >>and between us, we decided that I needed a few days of antibiotic to cure >>my >>sinus infection. And because the doctor told me this was necessary, the >>insurance company paid for it. > > And what if the insurance company didn't approve it? Would you still > get the medicine? Would you be able to buy the medicine? How long > would it take you to convince people to make out the prescription > if you didn't have insurance? Your first premise is false, so the fear-mongering you do in the next three rhetorical questions is meaningless. Eric Lucas
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Nov 2006 09:29 In article <87u4l2958euckevkl0iaf1oba4betm5amj(a)4ax.com>, Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:37:42 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>I also find it a thing of wonder how well the whole lot of them was able to >>foresee how American society might develop, how prescient they all ended up >>being, and how well they took account of it in their ideas about how the >>country should be structured. > >They were a very wise bunch indeed. They also had the luxury of being >able to start from scratch. But they didn't start from scratch. Each colony had been through many experiments. The Constitution is essentially our equivalent of a standard specification. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Nov 2006 09:31 In article <G1y4h.11017$r12.7330(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >news:ebe9$45527d5d$49ecfec$17717(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> Ben Newsam wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:37:42 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I also find it a thing of wonder how well the whole lot of them was able >>>>to foresee how American society might develop, how prescient they all >>>>ended up being, and how well they took account of it in their ideas about >>>>how the country should be structured. >>> >>> >>> They were a very wise bunch indeed. They also had the luxury of being >>> able to start from scratch. >> >> Not at all. They had a population that demanded as >> little change from what they were used to as >> necessary. As time went on they reverted to much >> of what they sought to escape when they came here. > >I think it was a good balance between keeping the parts of the English >system that made sense, and preventing the transgressions that made them >leave England. > >Or were you refering to the increasing imposition of religion on the >government that has been happening off-and-on for the last 20 - 30 years? > >I will say it is a shame that the current US public is currently so fearful >of change that no revolutionary new ideas have a chance. The debate over >nationalized health care is an excellent example. What is worse is people deciding to fix what ain't broke. /BAH
From: lucasea on 9 Nov 2006 09:39
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eivd0d$8qk_021(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <%Ul4h.9702$r12.8296(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eislgp$8qk_005(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45509EF9.BE1B73C6(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote >>>>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> My state is going to have an all Democrat political system with >>>>> >> no checks nor balances. >>>>> > >>>>> >....and yet somehow you completely fail to see how unhealthy that has >>>>> >been >>>>> >for the entire country. >>>>> >>>>> You do need to learn about Consitution. There are checks and >>>>> balances working. >>>> >>>>Bush has been busy removing some of them. >>> >>> He can't. His powers are checked by the legislature and judicial >>> branches of our government. >> >>In an ideal world, yes. However, you'd better open your eyes, because >>Bush >>has been slowly dismantling a number of the checks-and-balances that the >>Constitution sets up. Wiretaps without warrants issued by the Judicial >>branch is one example. > > The last I heard that classification of wiretapping was checked > by judiciary. No, they're still doing it. >> There are several others that I can't think of right >>now because I'm tired and my memory is worthless before noon. > > Night owl. :-) I'm the opposite. Anti-Bushers Why your incessant need to label people? It's extremely disrespectful, and is an indication that, by labelling them, you are setting up a wall to ignore what they say as false. That's not a very open-minded approach to debate.... > like to trot > this wire tapping thing out to prove that he is a bad person. Habeas corpus. Waging war not declared by Congress. Fortunately, he soon won't have a Congress that is willing to let him get away with it.... > It was part of the Patriot Act. No, it wasn't. The only act of Congress covering it was FISA. > The wire tapping does need an > order but the process is different from the usual process. Yes, that is what FISA says, but Bush is specifically refusing to abide by the terms and conditions of it. I would be very happy if he only agreed to get the after-the-fact warrants that FISA demands. Then there would at the very least be some form of accountability for the actions of the NSA. His refusal to even get the after-the-fact warrants makes me extremely suspicious of the reasons *why*. Let's think about possible reasons. 1) It will prevent effective wiretapping, since they will have to wait for a warrant. *Wrong*. The warrants are after-the-fact. 2) It will prevent any sort of accountability or judicial review of the wiretaps. Why would they need to prevent judicial review of their actions, if they intend to obey the law? > However, people like to present this example as if all phones > can be tapped at any time without any due process. Strawman. Who has presented it that way? Nobody I've heard. Eric Lucas |