Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Dec 2006 10:11 In article <ektb8e$2fs$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ekeqrf$8qk_001(a)s966.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <ekdeha$906$9(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >[....] > >>>>>So, you admit that there *is* needless paperwork. >> >>I would suspect there is. Identifying which pieces are needless >>takes long study and very careful tweaking. > >It doesn't even matter why it is there. All that matters is that there is >needless paper work so that we can discuss its effect on the economy. I told you why I wasn't going to use your incorrect assumptions. > >>>>Processes evolve. What once was necessary is only there because >>>>deleting the step would cause more breakage; leaving the step >>>>in doesn't break anything. >>> >>>Ok, so you *do* admit that there is needless paperwork. >> >>Oh, good grief. What is going on now? > >Every time I bring up the subject you dirvert the subject off to how >processes take a long time to change etc. At one point you even claimed >that the needless paper work was needed. I am diverting. You are trying to get me to discuss the effects of an incorrect assumption. I can't do that. > >[...] >>>I don't need to identify which bit is needless. All I need is to know >>>that there is needless paper work and we can go on to the subject of the >>>drag it places on the economy. >> >>No, you can't. > >There you go telling me what I can't do again. I can also rub my belly >while patting my head. Can you do those two things while biting your big toe nail? > > >>>> I can think >>>>of some cases, where a delay is inserted in a process so that the >>>>processing works more smoothly. The delay, by itself, is completely >>>>unnecessary; howver, in context of the whole process, it is >>>>what keeps the timing exactly correct. >>> >>>What in the neame of Zeus are you talking about? >> >>Think of a PERT chart. In some cases, you want to delay the >>rate of development of one part of a project until another >>piece is finished. > >Good lord! No, this would not be a "needless paperwork" if it had a >purpose. For some reason you are avoiding talking about the economic >effects by flinging up a smoke screen. I am not going to talk about an effect if the cause doesn't exist. > >[...] >>>No, my assumption is correct. You have already admitted that there is >>>needless paper work. >> >>There are also green apples. Continuing a design discussion >>based on a set of incorrect specs is useless. > >Obviously you do not wish to discuss the economics. I don't understand >why unless you already know that you have taken an incorrect position >previously. > >I'm going to give up on this subject because it is simply a time waster. Yup, that's a good idea. > > >[.....] >>>No, I wish to talk about filling out form 1287-B about eraser to gold >>>conversion. If you fill out that form, you waste some of your time. This >>>is what we are talking about. Needless paperwork is a drag on the >>>economy. I said nothing about stopping a productive activity. >> >>So why was the form 1287-B required? If it had no use, it would >>have been created because nobody would have thought of needing >>a form. > >Go back a reread what I wrote. I suggest you think about how processes evolve. > > >On second thought never mind. OK. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Dec 2006 10:14 In article <4572DA38.59F7F34E(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> If you've been reading the posts, you should be able to figure >> out why the extremists are winning. > >Eh ? > >Who says they are ? <sniff> Smell the coffee? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Dec 2006 10:15 In article <4572DAA8.52765B20(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: >> > >> >> When everybody gets everything equally, nobody is >> >> allowed to be wealthy. Thus, all are poor, equally poor, but >> >> poor. >> > >> >Even communist Russia wasn't run like that ! >> >> Of course it was. Only the viscious of the managers got the >> power. > >We were talking about wealth, albeit rather limited wealth in that era. And look how their agriculture suffered. How people get food is a clue to their economy, social structure, trade and power. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Dec 2006 10:40 In article <ektd89$2fs$11(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ekpaa1$8ss_007(a)s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[....] >>I pity those who dealt with assembler and never had DDT >>to help them eradicate the bugs. > >Don't pity those early years of mine. If you think your tools were fun, you should have used some of ours. :-) >I had some very good tools back >then. The first one I used was the "monitor" on the Intel MDS-800. Later >I used ICE-80. Things went to hell when Intel brought out the 8086. >ICE-86 took so long to transfer the software that I wrote a program to let >me bring it in via the serial port to speed things up. Did you hack stay around and become a vital network part? /BAH
From: unsettled on 3 Dec 2006 12:11
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <4572483D.8CB44CB6(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: snip >>It's more to do with 'professors' not having a clue about the real world > IMHO. > Those professors never had exposure to the real world when they > were kids. It's a problem; one of the ones I'm working on. One of the beauties of universal military service. |