Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 12 Nov 2006 06:12 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:bPz5h.24618$TV3.22736(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... > > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:3acc2$45569425$4fe7563$11470(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >> We have several posters here rooting for the Iraqis and >> Arabs in general, speaking consistently against the US. > > And about that you would, once again, be wrong. Nobody is "rooting" (as > if this were nothing more important than a football game) against the US. > We are "rooting" (to stick with your offensive terminology) for the Iraqis > to stop getting killed for no good reason (no sectarian violence there > before we decided to stick our nose in where it doesn't belong), and for > decency, sanity and honesty in the way the US applies its foreign policy. it is especially funny as one of the arguments used is that the invasion was to "help" the Iraqis. Now they are the enemy. Interesting set of double standards.
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2006 07:12 In article <u6d6l2d5vbhkvqoiqarfqkeq05rr4uvl4r(a)4ax.com>, George O. Bizzigotti <gbizzigo(a)mitretek.org> wrote: >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. Oh, I'm assuming that becoming self-sufficient would take decades. > >>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. Or deadly enemy. I've always been curious how this line got drawn in the past. Is this a part of what is called "foreign policy"? If so, then there has got to be a flow of information from the tech field into the state department and, probably, the military. >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. I wouldn't suspect :-), I'd be certain there would be trial and error. Every geographical spot has its own Murphy Laws, both physical and people. > >[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), Yea, the computing biz is getting into middle age. >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. Not quite. In our shop, the kid was gently herded. Our procedures eventually evolved so that double-checks could be made without anybody feeling picked on. The had the advantage of the new young things having a way to correct our bit gods. The, or a difference between a processing plant and software is that it is easier to delete a few bits of ASCII but impossible to delete a badly poured cement form. Thank you for your time. I now have more ideas about what to look for while I'm figuring all this stuff out. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2006 07:19 In article <4556023D.65907648(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> What is really happening >> is that people, who do not have access to a GP, go to the >> most expensive health care facility for treatment. > >Why would they do that ? To get drugs to fix their problem. Doctors don't take new patients who are already sick even if one has medical insurance. For a long time, the doctors around wouldn't take new patients who were on Medicare. I don't if that has changed. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2006 07:21 In article <fNqdnUasrZW2gsvYnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ej4h3k$8ss_013(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <PwH4h.11589$B31.10737(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:eive3d$8qk_028(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <G1y4h.11017$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. >>> >>>Something approaching 20% of the people in our country can't afford any >>>sort >>>of health care. To say that "ain't broke" is one of the most morally >>>bereft >>>statements I've heard in a very, very long time. Congratulations, you've >>>demonstrated the lack of a conscience along with a lack of a brain. >> >> You are parroting politicians again. What is really happening >> is that people, who do not have access to a GP, go to the >> most expensive health care facility for treatment. >> Now instead of concentrating on how they can't afford the most >> expensive service, why not concentrate on why they cannot get >> access to the usual general practioner's services. That is >> the problem. And it has become exasperated by everything being >> based on whether you have insurance or not. > >You present a strong case for the introduction of a nationalise healthcare >system, where all have equal access to healthcare resources based on medical >need. There will not be access. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. You can have oodles of insurance but, if you can't get an appt., you might as well use their forms for toilet paper. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2006 07:24
In article <45560341.A5C32A31(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >BAH may not be aware that it was a social conscience that drove Britain to >> >look at the possibility of a National Health Service. >> >> Britain is a single country and has a "small" acreage. The US >> is 50 "countries" span a quarter hemisphere. > >What's that got to do with it ? Administration costs. Availability. Approvals for specific treatments. It's "easier" to get these done in a small geographic space than a continent's acreage. > > >> >A society that condemns its less well-off members to poor / inadequate health >> >provision is no great example to anyone. >> > >> >Heck, there's an American chap I chat with on MSN who simply couldn't afford >> >to buy the best medicine for his wife's condition. >> >> You should have examined the situation a tad more closely. Was >> he able to get the good medicine or was he forced to take the >> generic? Did he expect to pay $12 for the best? I've run >> into this attitude before and people simply don't want to >> buy drugs without a massive discount. I don't understnad this >> mindset yet. > >Which part of " couldn't afford to buy the best medicine " didn't you understand ? All of it. /BAH |