Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Dec 2006 07:51 In article <33475$45740fba$4fe70a2$2686(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <83aa4$457305a4$4fe70d7$29287(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <MPG.1fdb63e0b29518b4989d88(a)news.individual.net>, >>>> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <ekrvkr$8qk_002(a)s1015.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <b59c2$4570f18a$4fe7357$10170(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>For me hex and hex were the same thing. I worked for year in >>>>>>>>an octal environment. I'd never be able to convert to hex. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In a different world it was said of one bit god, >>>>>>>the patron saint of cpm, that "For him, assembler >>>>>>>is a high level language." >>>>>> >>>>>>If you want to dabble in machine lanugage and not have to struggle >>>>>>with binary arithmetic, play with IBM's 1620. >>>>> >>>>>Ah, the CADET (Can't Add, Didn't Even Try). Addressing was still >>>>>binary, no? (long before my time) >>>> >>>> >>>>I don't think it was. I never knew about binary until I met >>>>a PDP-10. I had no idea about bases other than 10. There >>>>were a few math problems that dealt with converting logs >>>>in my past, but nothing was tied to reality. They were just >>>>logic problems that were fun to do but never used. >>> >>>Yet you're old enough to have used a slide rule. >> >> >> Yup. I used it for a few physics problems but did the >> arithmetic by hand instead. I got "better" answers. > >Then possibly you used logs without realizing it. Perhaps. Those days seemed to be stored in my fuzzy memory now. > >You might have an interesting conversation with Meron >about your better answers. <grin> I also got my answers "faster" than when I used the slide rule. I was very naive and young and foolish and stupid and too smart back then. I've heard about a 3-sided slide rule that does something. but I forget what. I just found my slide rule when I was working in my junk room. I have forgotten how to use it. I found a book at the dump that instructs how to use slide rules. It has been saved for a rainy day. /BAH >
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Dec 2006 07:56 In article <eb3ed$4570f324$4fe7357$10200(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <ekpc5r$gh6$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >>>In article <ekpa2n$8ss_005(a)s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>In article <ekmuf7$sk6$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <95d74$456dc13c$4fe7752$20089(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <485af$456c7009$4fe7665$9791(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In article <ekhdog$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>But again, what you get doesn't depend on your ability to pay. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Huh? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In a pure socialistic system, you'd receive what you need without >>> >>>regards >>> >>>>>>>to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>ability to pay, right? That's how the military works. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In the military physical performance is required and >>>>>>>>routinely tested. Inability to perform results in >>>>>>>>separation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>But you get ahead without regard to wealth. Your ability to pay doesn't >>>>>>>affect your advancement, as it does with a capitalistic system. >>>>>> >>>>>>Performance is the only currency deciding advancement, >>>>>>which isn't socialist at all. >>>>> >>>>>Sure it is. While everyone gets what they need to stay alive and healthy, >>>> >>>>the >>>> >>>>>best advance. >>>> >>>>No, they don't. You need to learn what motivates people to do >>>>estraordinary things. >>>> >>>> >>>>>However, wealth isn't a consideration in advancement as it is >>>>>under capitalism. >>>> >>>>Wealth is a side effect of capitalism. >>>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. > >Are there any rich kid entrepreneurs? There are some but they are the ones who were born with an itch that can't be scratched. I was told about how Norway is helping these types and making their activities socially acceptable. The guy who told me about this also said that there no equivalent in the US anymore. > >> A lot of people are reasonably wealthy from working on a production >> line and not spending all of their money on junk. That can only >> happen in a capitalistic-based society. Not only do these people >> become wealthy, they breed kids so become wealthier. Only >> people who are hungry go out and shoot dinner. > >It was a popular theme in the early movies to have a rich kid >have a row with the parents, then strike out to make it on >his own without their interference, eventually to return >when he'd achieved major success. A sort of a prodigal son >is successful story. I always hated that fable. The point of those stories was that any kid, even the rich one, can succeed if they work at it. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 4 Dec 2006 09:13 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> There are people who like to think. That's one way to do so. > >> > > >> >There's plenty of others more useful and rewarding. > >> > >> Not if you enjoy coding, debugging, and making the iron > >> run through your hoops. > > > >I'm used to doing that too. > > > >Assembler isn't the only way you know. > > Ah, but with assembler, you know exactly what you get to > tell the machine exactly what to do. With HLLs, somebody > else's code interprets yours and then they get to tell > the machine what you may have written. This is pefectly true of course but I'm entirely happy with the results I've had. I'm no fan of C either btw for the kind of microcontroller programming I do. Graham
From: Eeyore on 4 Dec 2006 09:16 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >Ken Smith wrote: > >> > > >> >> The so called "war on terror" has cost the US a great deal without > >> >> really yelding anything much as a result. > >> > > >> >You're kidding. > >> > > >> >It's yielded greater instability in the word and more hatred of the USA ( > >> >entirely justified this time ). > >> > > >> >What sheer brilliance. > >> > >> You both have been blind. > > > >Come on then. Don't be shy. What's your opinion on the matter ? > > The sound bite "war on xxxx" was misused so often that, when > the real thing is happening, nobody pays attention. The fable > about the boy crying wolf has become reality. That wasn't quite what I meant but I can't really disgree with that statement. To return to the original question. Do you feel this so-called 'war on terror' has been useful or counter-productive ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 4 Dec 2006 09:24
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > > >To keep the comparison fair, the machinery of that age was much > >better designed and wasn't on a short replacement cycle. Well > >after WW2 my mother didn't replace the washing machine till > >my parenst decided to buy a fancy new automatic washer. Even then > >the wringer washer was held as a spare in case the fancy one broke > >down. Eventually I pulled it apart for the motor which saw > >various uses for more than a decade afterwards. > > And the backup to the wringer was the washboard, which invariably > ate one's knuckles. One of my neighbours to this day still doesn't even have a washing machine. Graham |