Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: mmeron on 4 Dec 2006 13:01 In article <e5457$45745c67$4fe733a$4734(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> In article <33475$45740fba$4fe70a2$2686(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >> >>>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. >>> >>>You might have an interesting conversation with Meron >>>about your better answers. >>> >> >> I was tempted, but passed on this one:-) > >She recovered well enough. > Yep. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: Eeyore on 4 Dec 2006 13:02 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>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. > > In principle, National Service is a good idea - although I think people > should be "conscripted" to "social" type work Not a bad idea in fact. > (and I suspect this will be > heckled as being "socialist" by many knee-jerkers). > > Conscript soldiers nearly always undermine the militaries effectiveness. A > modern army needs willing volunteers who are prepared to do the bad, harsh, > things. Armies with conscripts have (in my personal experience) always been > inferior. I believe that is indeed universally true. Graham
From: T Wake on 4 Dec 2006 13:14 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:457462C9.9DA0A24C(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >>>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. >> >> In principle, National Service is a good idea - although I think people >> should be "conscripted" to "social" type work > > Not a bad idea in fact. It does still carry a bit of a problem regarding "pressed labour" being inferior as well, but I suspect this is not insurmountable and armys of road repairers and the like would be great :-) >> (and I suspect this will be >> heckled as being "socialist" by many knee-jerkers). >> >> Conscript soldiers nearly always undermine the militaries effectiveness. >> A >> modern army needs willing volunteers who are prepared to do the bad, >> harsh, >> things. Armies with conscripts have (in my personal experience) always >> been >> inferior. > > I believe that is indeed universally true. I'd like to think that was the case, but I certainly have not seen every conscript army in action :-)
From: Eeyore on 4 Dec 2006 13:17 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>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. > > > > Nope. It's fact. > > Really? It is strange how many of the "self made millionaires" in the US > actually come from wealthy backgrounds. > > You don't find many second generate Puerto Ricans heading up Fortune 500 > companies. > > I am sure you, or some of your pointless sycophants, can point to one or two > self made men who truly came from poverty (in the last fifty years) and is > now a billionaire or whatever - however, based on the percentages this > represents, it _still_ proves Lloyd Parker's point. > > Your exact claim is the "poor kid will succeed more often than the rich > kid" - given there are *more* poor kids than rich kids, the percentage of > ex-Poor kids should be staggering in your society. > > Is it? I had a hard time thinking of any example of 'rags to riches' success but I reckon I'm reasonably close with Alan Sugar. From school-leaver market trader to owner of what is now probably the largest UK electronics company in consumer goods with a personal worth of �800 million he's done quite well ! Of course this happened in the supposedly 'socialist' UK ! I wonder if BAH would like to comment ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sugar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amstrad Graham
From: T Wake on 4 Dec 2006 13:33
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4574662E.4F4AE23(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>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. >> > >> > Nope. It's fact. >> >> Really? It is strange how many of the "self made millionaires" in the US >> actually come from wealthy backgrounds. >> >> You don't find many second generate Puerto Ricans heading up Fortune 500 >> companies. >> >> I am sure you, or some of your pointless sycophants, can point to one or >> two >> self made men who truly came from poverty (in the last fifty years) and >> is >> now a billionaire or whatever - however, based on the percentages this >> represents, it _still_ proves Lloyd Parker's point. >> >> Your exact claim is the "poor kid will succeed more often than the rich >> kid" - given there are *more* poor kids than rich kids, the percentage of >> ex-Poor kids should be staggering in your society. >> >> Is it? > > I had a hard time thinking of any example of 'rags to riches' success but > I > reckon I'm reasonably close with Alan Sugar. > > From school-leaver market trader to owner of what is now probably the > largest UK > electronics company in consumer goods with a personal worth of �800 > million > he's done quite well ! He has done very well. I am not sure that having �100 savings in the 1960's equates to "rags" though. :-) My personal take on this "be rich to suceed" is that people from better off backgrounds have the disposable income to support their children in their very early days which will always be an advantage. If Alan Sugar hadn't been able to save up his initial deposit, or the financial risk of his enterprise was too great for him to take i.e. even his business needed a few weeks to get off the ground, if he was going to starve during this period I cant see him being rich now. > Of course this happened in the supposedly 'socialist' UK ! /BAH has well and truly jumped off the deep end with her obsession over decreeing the UK a "socialist nation." She is getting confused over people she responds to - all in the effort to call them socialist if they disagree with her (Lloyd Parker springs to mind). > I wonder if BAH would like to comment ? :-) |