Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 1 Dec 2006 09:38 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >> > > >> >Are you seriously suggesting someone born to a poverty family has the same > >> >chance of becoming successful as someone born to a rich family in a > >> >capitalistic society? > >> > >> Yes. I will even go further and state that the poor kid has more > >> motivation than the rich kid. Thus, the poor kid will succeed > >> more often than the rich kid. > > > >I rather doubt that it happens like that in practice. > > But it happens all the time in the US, which is capitalistic > and not socialistic. I rather doubt that it does happen all the time in the USA. I suspect it's just another of your fanciful folksy notions. > >Th rich kid is likely to have a better education, > >better connections and better > >opportunities ( including relatively easy access to money for investment ). > > The rich kid is also likely to be quite lazy and never taught, nor > learn, how to get work done. Based on what evidence exactly ? > As for education, the only way to learn stuff is by doing it or > watching other people do it and then trying to emulate them. What does that have to do with being rich or poor ? > This does not include the GIGO which is now often found in > universities these days. A lot of complete rubbish is certainly taught at unis. Graham
From: Ken Smith on 1 Dec 2006 09:40 In article <6d32b$456dc054$4fe7752$20089(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: [...] >> No, consider only the case I gave. The station in never going to be >> heard out of state. How does the FCC constitutionally get the right to >> regulate it, that can't also be used as an argument making the NHS >> constitutional? Several people have asserted that the constitution bars a >> NHS. > >You're missing an important aspect, interference with aviation. > >Same reason they regulate transmitter towers which don't cross >state lines either. That would give the FAA the power to control a narrowly defined set of things about radio stations. They would have no right to say anything about program content for example. The federal government sets limits on what is broadcast on KALW. I say that they can only have this power by logic that also allows an NHS. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 1 Dec 2006 09:41 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> Yup. I knew people who would read a listing when going to the > >> toilet. > > > >Good Lord ! > > > >Did they use it for the other thing too ? > > Heavens! NO! The listing has the hen scratches that may > fix the bug. > > Don't you read code as a hobby? 'As a hobby' might be stretching a point ! I do 'read up' on stuff generally though for my own interest / education. .. > I like reading math books. No that bothered about maths. I took an added interest when Mathcad came out since it was possible to put maths to some real use but I only need that occasionally. > Haven't done that for a while because I've been trying to > learn all this people-stuff. Very different isn't it ? Not so neat and tidy for one thing ! Graham
From: Ken Smith on 1 Dec 2006 09:43 In article <C1932321.4F2DC%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: [....] >> No, consider only the case I gave. The station in never going to be >> heard out of state. How does the FCC constitutionally get the right to >> regulate it, that can't also be used as an argument making the NHS >> constitutional? Several people have asserted that the constitution bars a >> NHS. >> >> > >The case you gave is insufficient to build law upon. We are not discussing the "building" of law. We are discussing the powers the federal government has. If the signal from KALW can never be heard outside the state, they can only have the power to regulate that station by logic that would also make the NHS constitutional. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Dec 2006 09:39
In article <45703C71.69131C9A(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: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >I never get involved in assembler aside from DSP. It's far too difficult >> >> >to maintain and far too easy to write nonsense code. >> >> >> >> And it doesn't appear that anyone got my joke. >> >> >> >> Assember isn't difficult to maintain and I can't imagine writing >> >> nonsense code. Assembler is too clear-cut for obfuscation. >> > >> >Maintenance can mean maintenance by those who didn't write it. >> >> So? That has to be part of the product plan. > >I'll bet most managers forget that. Not in our biz. > > >> >There's simply no way I'd have taken on maintaining >> >large amounts of assembler. >> >> Yes, I would never assign such work to you because you don't >> think that way. > >There are probably very few ppl still capable of doing it. You are wrong. > Certainly not coming >out of universities I'd reckon. It's simply not sensible to use assembler any >more for most things. What you do think the people who code your HLLs do? What do you think people who teach HLLs about new CPU architectures do? How do you find the people who have a knack for this kind of work if nobody is aware that machine language will always exist? /BAH |