From: lucasea on 9 Nov 2006 09:40 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eivd4n$8qk_022(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4551EEA8.CD325E84(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> 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. All presidents have tried to do >>> certain things. So far they have failed, as the Constitution >>> designed it. >> >>You're saying he *hasn't* effectively removed habeas corpus ? > > For me? No. Uh...I hate to surprise you, but yes he has. You just better hope they never get it in their heads that you are a terrorist, because they're doing this to US citizens. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 9 Nov 2006 09:45 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eivdn1$8qk_025(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <P4m4h.9861$r12.5744(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eismvd$8qk_001(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <eirk14$qa6$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>Where does the money really go? "the general fund" is an accounting >>>>device not the final destination of the money. >>> >>> Patronage pockets. Extending all infrastructure projects 2 or >>> 3 decades. The so-called social services. Building disintegrating >>> buildings. >> >>You really do need to see more of your own country. Not every >>infrastructure project is "The Big Dig", and not every state in this >>nation >>is phenomenally stupid enough to let a fiasco like the Big Dig happen. > > Oh, shove it where sun don't shine. He asked where our tax monies > were going. I listed a few. Why do you keep generalizing my > specifications to the point of fiasco and then using your erroneous > conclusions to put words in my mouth? And if you wouldn't automatically go on the defensive, you'd realize that what I'm trying to say is that your paranoia is based on an anomaly that you apparently assume is general. It isn't, and your defensiveness shows that you don't even realize that you tacitly made that assumption in assuming that all monies meant for infrastructure are misspent. Eric Lucas
From: unsettled on 9 Nov 2006 09:46 xray wrote: > On Thu, 09 Nov 06 12:31:21 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >>I don't how strategy work gets done, but Bush does have a coherent >>policy. > > > That's a joke right? > You and a few others heareabouts need to learn the essential lesson; There's always the reason given, and then there's the real reason.
From: lucasea on 9 Nov 2006 09:57 "George O. Bizzigotti" <gbizzigo(a)mitretek.org> wrote in message news:u6d6l2d5vbhkvqoiqarfqkeq05rr4uvl4r(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 08 Nov 06 13:03:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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 $billions > on construction of a faulty design and the lives of the workers if > uncaught faults compromise safety. This latter risk of lives *cannot* be overstated. It is *the* primary risk, and chemical plants are extremely complex beasts. It takes a huge amount of experience to see all of the "gotchas", where condition A combines with condition B which combines with conditions C, D, E and F, to cause the plant to blow up. And add to this the fact that most of those conditions are a result of out-of-spec operation (operator error, out-of-spec starting material, etc.) or other unanticpated events. Ya gotta think of *all* of them...and then think of some more...and only a person who has participated in many, many plant designs would have internalized how important that is, well enough to lead the next plant design project. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 9 Nov 2006 10:06
<lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:olH4h.11583$B31.8703(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... > > "George O. Bizzigotti" <gbizzigo(a)mitretek.org> wrote in message > news:u6d6l2d5vbhkvqoiqarfqkeq05rr4uvl4r(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 08 Nov 06 13:03:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > 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. > > This latter risk of lives *cannot* be overstated. It is *the* primary > risk, and chemical plants are extremely complex beasts. It takes a huge > amount of experience to see all of the "gotchas", where condition A > combines with condition B which combines with conditions C, D, E and F, to > cause the plant to blow up. And add to this the fact that most of those > conditions are a result of out-of-spec operation (operator error, > out-of-spec starting material, etc.) or other unanticpated events. Ya > gotta think of *all* of them...and then think of some more...and only a > person who has participated in many, many plant designs would have > internalized how important that is, well enough to lead the next plant > design project. I hate to reply to my own post, but I hit send before I had said all I wanted to say. Even a very simple chemical process typically has 20 or more control variables. Each of these has a normal operating range (control theory places limits on how tightly you should normally control these variables, based on their ability to drift with time, and on the response time of the system and the various instruments that measure the control variables). The process design team has the enormously complex task of mapping out this region in 20-dimensional space, and exploring all parts of the "normal operating regime" (mostly by computer simulations before plant construction) to make sure that there are no gotchas in that region. Then they need to go outside of that space, to see if there are any nearby gotchas in the even that 1, 2, 3 or all 20 of those variables go out of spec at once. And this is all as regards a very simple chemical process, with no unusual hazards. Add complexity, hazards (corrosion, high toxicity, explosivity, etc.), and it's orders of magnitude more difficult. Eric Lucas |